I don't get where the criticism of the Obama administration comes from.
Perhaps from the fact that the Ambassador to the UN was blaming the deaths in Libya on the video after the evidence says that she knew that there was no connection between the deaths in Libya and the video? Or perhaps it is the fact that at a time when the Ambassador to Libya (who is now dead) was asking for more security, and the embassy security people in Libya were asking for beefed up security, the Obama Administration chose to reduce security for the embassy in Libya? There is more, but since you get your news from ABC, NBC, CNN, etc you probably haven't heard any of it.
The French Revolution was led by the spoiled sons of those who were rising up economically. The cause of the French Revolution was NOT the fact that the downtrodden had no hope. The cause of the French Revolution was the sons of the newly privileged not having anything else to keep themselves busy. The aristocracy assumed that the sons of those who had made something of themselves would see the opportunity that was there for themselves and strive to become part of the aristocracy.
There is no real point in continuing this discussion. You appear to have thoroughly absorbed the theory without actually talking to people who have been taught that the system is stacked against them and that they have no chance to advance.
Except that when you talk to those in cities with high crime rates who are members of the class that the criminals are drawn from, you discover that the majority of them believe that they have no hope of advancement through hard work.
Now look at the life of the descendants of those who remained behind. That does not mean that any of them are genetically predisposed to their situation. It just means that things are more complicated than the conclusions that you appear to be reaching. Economic oppression is even easier if you can convince the oppressed that the deck is stacked against them and their is nothing they can do to change things.
I'm sorry but economic oppression is much harder when you teach people that all they have to do to get ahead is work hard. It is much easier to oppress people when you teach them that no matter what they do, they are going to be poor and downtrodden. On the other hand, if you teach people that if they work hard enough, save their money and make wise decisions, their children can live a better life than they do, they might actually try to succeed. Some of them might end up on the Supreme Court, or as CEO of successful corporations. That does not mean that some people do not have a tougher road than others. It just means that those who succeed are drawn from the pool of those who believe that they can succeed.
You referenced an article on politifact.com, which is what I referred to as an arm of the Democratic Party, not the Tax Policy Center. Once again, the point I made was specifically that Romney's claim for his tax plan is mathematically possible. I have no interest in discussing whether it is likely to actually happen. The fact that you jump all over me for arguing that claiming it is not mathematically possible indicates that you are blinded by partisanship.
I have yet to hear any credible source make the case that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible. You counter that by a study which, according to you, says it is unlikely. I do not care enough to investigate whether you are accurately portraying what your sources say, since they do not contradict the point I was making.
Tapes did not kill vinyl records, CDs did. Vinyl records lived side by side with tapes until CDs came out. CDs filled the same product use as vinyl records. When recordable CDs became reasonably priced, they killed tapes. I remember when CDs first came out. Everybody had a tape player and a record player.
Many counties have "county dumps" where you can haul trash (such as worn out sofas) and dispose of them for a more or less nominal fee. In addition to the county dumps, many private landowners have permits to accept trash. Where do you think the garbage trucks take your trash to? That's right, to legitimate dumping grounds, many of those dumps will accept trash from individual citizens for a fee.
Why would I turn to an arm of the Democratic Party for an evaluation of a Republican proposal when I can get the interpretation of an economics professor from one of the country's most prestigious schools. Most importantly the question is I addressed was whether or not Romney's proposal was mathematically possible, the answer is that, contrary to what was categorically stated by the poster I responded to, it is. It is entirely another question whether or not you believe that it will be executed in the manner which Romney claims, but it is mathematically possible for it to be done.
We do not know whether Romney has the will, or political ability to do what he claims he is going to do with the tax code. We do however know that Obama did not have the will (and probably not the political ability--it is open to question whether anyone would have) to cut the deficit in half in his first term. It seems improbable that he will attempt to do so in his second term either, since none of his budget proposals have come anywhere close to actually executing any reduction in the rate of increase of the deficit, let alone actually reducing it.
Romney has stated that he plans to slash income taxes by 20% and eliminate the estate tax -- a huge giveaway to the old rich that will cost $4.8T over ten years. He insists he'll pay for it all by closing loopholes, but that's mathematically impossible. Either he's going to raise taxes on the middle class, or run up the deficit, or he's just flat out lying.
Except of course that several sources show that it ismathematically possible. Princeton economics professor Harvey S. Rosen has a paper that shows how it is possible for Romney's tax cuts to be both revenue neutral and to not reduce the amount of tax paid by high earners. Does that mean that that is what Romney is going to do? No, but it does mean that it is mathematically possible to do what he says he is going to do.
Perhaps you might look at more than just what he has done while he is campaigning? Of course, why should you attempt to determine anything about somebody by the way they have actually lived their lives? You know, the way he shut down a multi-million dollar corporation so that its employees could go and look for the missing daughter of one of those employees? Or the way he loaned the money to a family so they could buy the house they had been renting from him when no banks would give them a mortgage?
Of course, if you did that, you might have to question whether the man who can't even be bothered to send a few dollars to his own brother, who is living in poverty, really cares about the "little guy".
Just because he can tell them apart does not mean that he knows which one is which. When this case went to court I could have told you that a Blackberry looked different than an Iphone, but I could not have told you which was the Iphone and which was the Blackberry.
cars suitable for average daily use by more than half the people
The problem is that people use their cars for things other than just their "average daily use," and for many people it is more budget efficient to pay the extra cost in fuel than it is to buy an additional vehicle.
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like. The fact that Samsung's lawyer did not know which was which does not really tell us anything other than the fact that he did not know which was which
Yeah, I have. I suppose you could work that way, but it really is a pain to have to track every outlet and fixture in every room so that you know for sure that that circuit breaker you thought only had one small item on it is not already operating at close to its capacity because the amateur electrician (who knew where he ran everything on every circuit) had put something that draws a lot of juice on the other side of the house on that circuit because there was nothing on it.
If only you could see the spaghetti code I've seen. Ordinary people are free to write code, in fact I love that and I hope that continues to expand. But when you're talking about commercial grade software being written for a company that is being sold to people for real money... that's when I start to cringe that "good enough to tinker with in my home means good enough to be deployed to millions of personal devices across the world."
Have you seen the wiring put into houses by people who are "good enough to tinker with in my own home" when it comes to electrical work? It makes spaghetti code look straightforward. I've known several people who were very good "handyman" electricians. If you needed one new outlet run, or a single light fixture added, they were very bit as good and reliable as a certified electrician. But, if they wired more than five or six circuits in a house (usually only happened if it was the house they owned and lived in), if you needed someone else to wire anything in the house (such as after they sold it) you would usually have to rewire the whole house in order to figure out what outlets and fixtures were on what circuits.
This is one of two cases before the Supreme Court this fall that present challenges to the "first sale" doctrine (and several related legal concepts). The other is a case involving the sale of textbooks (I believe that this was discussed on slashdot back in the spring).
Beyond that, making abortion illegal doesn't stop a woman from having an abortion, it just means she's less likely to have proper medical supervision before/after, and as a result, more likely to develop complications from the procedure.
You mean like the wonderful care that Dr. Gosnell of Philadelphia provided to the women he performed abortions for? I'm aorry, but the Dr. Gosnell case makes nonsense of that particular argument for legalizing abortion. At least when abortions are illegal, women know that the abortionist is a slimy character with no respect for the law and standards of health practice.
Thank you, that was the thought I came here to express. I am somewhat older than the person who posted the question and when I need a new skill set, I acquire it. When I was job hunting for my current job, most of the places I interviewed at said, "Oh, we like your experience, but you haven't worked with X. We want someone with experience with X." In almost all of those cases, I was confident that I could pick up what I did not know as it was needed on the job. My current employer hired me even though I did not have experience in 3 or 4 things that other companies would have put in that "X" that any hire would have to have for this position. It has turned out that in all but one of those things my perception that the learning curve to understand the network architecture of a place I had never worked at before would be more difficult than that for the technologies I had never worked with before proved to be correct. That one area is one where it has not been worth the company's time for me to attempt to learn until more urgent issues in other areas get resolved (they did not have an IT guy before they hired me and things have gotten a little chaotic, I am gradually getting the chaos under control).
Obama is very definitely a progressive. If you look at the history of progressive ideology, you will discover that its main goal is for bureaucrats to take over making all decisions for everyone (except for the elites who are above the law). Progressives believe that everything will work better if "experts" make the important decisions (like what cars are built by the car companies, what crops are grown by farmers, what type of food is in the grocery store).
authorities will be able to integrate all kinds of services, such as traffic tickets, licensing and annual taxes, automatic toll charge, and much more.
Such as keeping track of who attends opposition political meetings and making sure that they do not get government contracts (and do get extra visits from the police).
Scooter Libby was convicted of lying for having a different recollection of a telephone conversation from six months to a year earlier than the other party to the phone conversation had. The precedent has been established that they only have to provide reasonable doubt that what you said under oath is correct (let alone that you knowingly lied).
Slashdot Mirror
But those emissions are not counted when the state tightens its emission rules on cars.
I don't get where the criticism of the Obama administration comes from.
Perhaps from the fact that the Ambassador to the UN was blaming the deaths in Libya on the video after the evidence says that she knew that there was no connection between the deaths in Libya and the video? Or perhaps it is the fact that at a time when the Ambassador to Libya (who is now dead) was asking for more security, and the embassy security people in Libya were asking for beefed up security, the Obama Administration chose to reduce security for the embassy in Libya? There is more, but since you get your news from ABC, NBC, CNN, etc you probably haven't heard any of it.
The French Revolution was led by the spoiled sons of those who were rising up economically. The cause of the French Revolution was NOT the fact that the downtrodden had no hope. The cause of the French Revolution was the sons of the newly privileged not having anything else to keep themselves busy. The aristocracy assumed that the sons of those who had made something of themselves would see the opportunity that was there for themselves and strive to become part of the aristocracy.
There is no real point in continuing this discussion. You appear to have thoroughly absorbed the theory without actually talking to people who have been taught that the system is stacked against them and that they have no chance to advance.
Except that when you talk to those in cities with high crime rates who are members of the class that the criminals are drawn from, you discover that the majority of them believe that they have no hope of advancement through hard work.
If you convince the downtrodden that they have no hope to get ahead in a country where gun ownership is a right, you get an armed revolt.
No, you don't, you get crime. Just look at most of the cities in this country.
Now look at the life of the descendants of those who remained behind. That does not mean that any of them are genetically predisposed to their situation. It just means that things are more complicated than the conclusions that you appear to be reaching. Economic oppression is even easier if you can convince the oppressed that the deck is stacked against them and their is nothing they can do to change things.
I'm sorry but economic oppression is much harder when you teach people that all they have to do to get ahead is work hard. It is much easier to oppress people when you teach them that no matter what they do, they are going to be poor and downtrodden. On the other hand, if you teach people that if they work hard enough, save their money and make wise decisions, their children can live a better life than they do, they might actually try to succeed. Some of them might end up on the Supreme Court, or as CEO of successful corporations. That does not mean that some people do not have a tougher road than others. It just means that those who succeed are drawn from the pool of those who believe that they can succeed.
You referenced an article on politifact.com, which is what I referred to as an arm of the Democratic Party, not the Tax Policy Center. Once again, the point I made was specifically that Romney's claim for his tax plan is mathematically possible. I have no interest in discussing whether it is likely to actually happen. The fact that you jump all over me for arguing that claiming it is not mathematically possible indicates that you are blinded by partisanship.
I have yet to hear any credible source make the case that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible. You counter that by a study which, according to you, says it is unlikely. I do not care enough to investigate whether you are accurately portraying what your sources say, since they do not contradict the point I was making.
Tapes did not kill vinyl records, CDs did. Vinyl records lived side by side with tapes until CDs came out. CDs filled the same product use as vinyl records. When recordable CDs became reasonably priced, they killed tapes. I remember when CDs first came out. Everybody had a tape player and a record player.
Many counties have "county dumps" where you can haul trash (such as worn out sofas) and dispose of them for a more or less nominal fee. In addition to the county dumps, many private landowners have permits to accept trash. Where do you think the garbage trucks take your trash to? That's right, to legitimate dumping grounds, many of those dumps will accept trash from individual citizens for a fee.
Why would I turn to an arm of the Democratic Party for an evaluation of a Republican proposal when I can get the interpretation of an economics professor from one of the country's most prestigious schools. Most importantly the question is I addressed was whether or not Romney's proposal was mathematically possible, the answer is that, contrary to what was categorically stated by the poster I responded to, it is. It is entirely another question whether or not you believe that it will be executed in the manner which Romney claims, but it is mathematically possible for it to be done.
We do not know whether Romney has the will, or political ability to do what he claims he is going to do with the tax code. We do however know that Obama did not have the will (and probably not the political ability--it is open to question whether anyone would have) to cut the deficit in half in his first term. It seems improbable that he will attempt to do so in his second term either, since none of his budget proposals have come anywhere close to actually executing any reduction in the rate of increase of the deficit, let alone actually reducing it.
Romney has stated that he plans to slash income taxes by 20% and eliminate the estate tax -- a huge giveaway to the old rich that will cost $4.8T over ten years. He insists he'll pay for it all by closing loopholes, but that's mathematically impossible. Either he's going to raise taxes on the middle class, or run up the deficit, or he's just flat out lying.
Except of course that several sources show that it is mathematically possible. Princeton economics professor Harvey S. Rosen has a paper that shows how it is possible for Romney's tax cuts to be both revenue neutral and to not reduce the amount of tax paid by high earners. Does that mean that that is what Romney is going to do? No, but it does mean that it is mathematically possible to do what he says he is going to do.
Perhaps you might look at more than just what he has done while he is campaigning? Of course, why should you attempt to determine anything about somebody by the way they have actually lived their lives? You know, the way he shut down a multi-million dollar corporation so that its employees could go and look for the missing daughter of one of those employees? Or the way he loaned the money to a family so they could buy the house they had been renting from him when no banks would give them a mortgage?
Of course, if you did that, you might have to question whether the man who can't even be bothered to send a few dollars to his own brother, who is living in poverty, really cares about the "little guy".
Just because he can tell them apart does not mean that he knows which one is which. When this case went to court I could have told you that a Blackberry looked different than an Iphone, but I could not have told you which was the Iphone and which was the Blackberry.
cars suitable for average daily use by more than half the people
The problem is that people use their cars for things other than just their "average daily use," and for many people it is more budget efficient to pay the extra cost in fuel than it is to buy an additional vehicle.
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like. The fact that Samsung's lawyer did not know which was which does not really tell us anything other than the fact that he did not know which was which
Yeah, I have. I suppose you could work that way, but it really is a pain to have to track every outlet and fixture in every room so that you know for sure that that circuit breaker you thought only had one small item on it is not already operating at close to its capacity because the amateur electrician (who knew where he ran everything on every circuit) had put something that draws a lot of juice on the other side of the house on that circuit because there was nothing on it.
So, you think that the average size car on the road should be a 1985 Civic CRX?
If only you could see the spaghetti code I've seen. Ordinary people are free to write code, in fact I love that and I hope that continues to expand. But when you're talking about commercial grade software being written for a company that is being sold to people for real money ... that's when I start to cringe that "good enough to tinker with in my home means good enough to be deployed to millions of personal devices across the world."
Have you seen the wiring put into houses by people who are "good enough to tinker with in my own home" when it comes to electrical work? It makes spaghetti code look straightforward. I've known several people who were very good "handyman" electricians. If you needed one new outlet run, or a single light fixture added, they were very bit as good and reliable as a certified electrician. But, if they wired more than five or six circuits in a house (usually only happened if it was the house they owned and lived in), if you needed someone else to wire anything in the house (such as after they sold it) you would usually have to rewire the whole house in order to figure out what outlets and fixtures were on what circuits.
This is one of two cases before the Supreme Court this fall that present challenges to the "first sale" doctrine (and several related legal concepts). The other is a case involving the sale of textbooks (I believe that this was discussed on slashdot back in the spring).
Beyond that, making abortion illegal doesn't stop a woman from having an abortion, it just means she's less likely to have proper medical supervision before/after, and as a result, more likely to develop complications from the procedure.
You mean like the wonderful care that Dr. Gosnell of Philadelphia provided to the women he performed abortions for? I'm aorry, but the Dr. Gosnell case makes nonsense of that particular argument for legalizing abortion. At least when abortions are illegal, women know that the abortionist is a slimy character with no respect for the law and standards of health practice.
Thank you, that was the thought I came here to express. I am somewhat older than the person who posted the question and when I need a new skill set, I acquire it. When I was job hunting for my current job, most of the places I interviewed at said, "Oh, we like your experience, but you haven't worked with X. We want someone with experience with X." In almost all of those cases, I was confident that I could pick up what I did not know as it was needed on the job. My current employer hired me even though I did not have experience in 3 or 4 things that other companies would have put in that "X" that any hire would have to have for this position. It has turned out that in all but one of those things my perception that the learning curve to understand the network architecture of a place I had never worked at before would be more difficult than that for the technologies I had never worked with before proved to be correct. That one area is one where it has not been worth the company's time for me to attempt to learn until more urgent issues in other areas get resolved (they did not have an IT guy before they hired me and things have gotten a little chaotic, I am gradually getting the chaos under control).
Obama is very definitely a progressive. If you look at the history of progressive ideology, you will discover that its main goal is for bureaucrats to take over making all decisions for everyone (except for the elites who are above the law). Progressives believe that everything will work better if "experts" make the important decisions (like what cars are built by the car companies, what crops are grown by farmers, what type of food is in the grocery store).
authorities will be able to integrate all kinds of services, such as traffic tickets, licensing and annual taxes, automatic toll charge, and much more.
Such as keeping track of who attends opposition political meetings and making sure that they do not get government contracts (and do get extra visits from the police).
Scooter Libby was convicted of lying for having a different recollection of a telephone conversation from six months to a year earlier than the other party to the phone conversation had. The precedent has been established that they only have to provide reasonable doubt that what you said under oath is correct (let alone that you knowingly lied).