Actually, no I don't. Unless you are talking about a question that was asked of Republican Presidential candidates, which was not a deal that was actually on the table. Rather it was purely hypothetical. In which case, of course they stated that they would reject it. If they had said they would take it and then won the election, the Democrats would have claimed that that was the place to start negotiating on taxes and spending cuts. Of course one of the biggest problems we have in this discussion is that when Democrats talk about "spending cuts" they don't mean actual cuts. What they really mean is reducing the amount that spending increases compared to what they had projected that they would increase spending.
Why did the Senate (and Obama) have to wait until now to act on those bills? The Senate could have passed those bills last year. Why should the House pass the bills again when the Senate has refused to even consider them?
WE have been down the road of "raise taxes now and cut spending later" before. Yet it seems that spending never gets reduced. Maybe the reason that Republicans think that cutting spending is the only way to fix the budget has something to do with how loud the Democrats scream about things like this when the only thing about to happen is that spending won't increase by as much as it would have if not for this. If people like you are this scared by the increase in spending slowing down, how are they going to react if there is ever a proposal to actually reduce spending?
That's all well and good. Where is the Democratic budget that the House Republicans are supposed to compromise with? Or are they supposed to come up with a budget that magically meets all of the Democrats wishlist items?
the Republicans have failed to budge from their stance against taxing the wealthy.
I thought they already gave Obama the tax increase he wanted at the beginning of the year. Obama was claiming that if they gave him a tax increase during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations than the sequester negotiations would be all about budget cuts.
Well, if the Senate would pass a budget then we would have some idea of what sort of budget might pass the Senate (and if it is reasonable to expect the House to pass such a budget). Since the Senate has not done so in somewhere around four years, the House has no way of knowing what kind of budget would pass the Senate and have reason to believe that the answer is that NO budget will pass the Senate. If the Senate will not pass any budget, how is the House supposed to pass one that has a chance to pass the Senate?
Think tanks, superpacs, etc funded by the hyper-rich create policy...
By hyper-rich, you mean people like George Soros...Oops, no I guess not, since his money goes to think tanks and super-pacs that create policy for the Democratic Party...and ostracize those Democratic politicians who do not hew sufficiently close to the line on those policies. Or maybe you mean Herb and Marion Sandler, the couple who profited off of the banking practices that led to the financial meltdown and sold their company just before the collapse? Oh no, you must not mean them, they support Democratic Party think tanks and Super PACs as well.
You mean the House Republicans who passed not one but two bills as alternatives to replace sequestration while the Senate Democrats did nothing (except to complain that the Republicans hadn't agreed to raise taxes even more) and when the President finally actually proposed something it included mostly more tax increases and a lot of "cuts" that were undefined.
Of course, the other part of your post that I have to challenge is the idea that cutting the amount that government spending increases will somehow "cripple" the government. Not only are the cuts in this sequestration not significant, they are merely reductions in how much federal spending will increase not reductions in actual amounts spent.
As a few others have pointed out, the point the original poster was making was NOT that the police would do anything about the problem. The OP's point was that by contacting the local police and filling out a police report, you have a paper trail that something is going on, so that down the road, if this person is successful you can document that you were aware of it and took steps to address the problem. Of course it is important that when you contact the police you make it clear that you do not expect that they can or will do anything about it. You let them know that you are contacting them so that you have an official record of the problem and so that if by some remote chance the information you are providing them connects to other information they have received they have it to add into their case files.
Oh, I have a game I play with those as well. I give them a fictitious name who claims to be interested. Then when they call for that person, I tell them he just stepped out, but should be back in five minutes. When they call back (always longer then five minutes later), "Oh, you just missed him. He went out for lunch (or some such). He should be back in half an hour." Of course it is always more than half an hour before they call back. When they do call back, I tell them that he went to bed, went out for the evening, or something similar and how disappointed he will be that he missed their call, please try again tomorrow. I have never had somebody call me back again the next day at that point. Basically, I play a game seeing how much of their time I can use up. Time is money to these people, they hate wasting it on someone who doesn't buy (if more people would waste an actual person's time with these companies they would go out of business).
I have found a way that gets me off of these lists. All of the automated calls, sooner or later, connect you to someone whose job it is to take down your information so that they can get your money. I always indicate that I am interested. Then when I start talking to someone, I ask questions indicating that I am interested but don't quite understand what they are offering. If I have time, I keep them on the line as long as possible before telling them I think they are the scum of the earth for being involved with such a scam. If I don't at least have time to talk to a real person, I don't answer the phone. It's interesting that after I talk to someone, it is month's before they call me again. A live person costs them money. They don't like it when you talk to a live person and don't "buy".
I love it. I make a comment to point out that the OP is interjecting a political view (in a troll like manner) into a non-political discussion, but I'm the one moderated "Flamebait".
MGR: "Device drivers are something that only someone with a college degree should write."
You: "Well, Ok, the second best guy for the job is...(somebody on the staff with a college degree). I would have thought you wanted the guy who would do the best job, but it's your call."
If you read the article you would discover that the number on the document he was asked to sign was taken directly from the invoice printed by the company...except it was converted from the Canadian dollars on the invoice into U.S. dollars are the form which the government created and asked him to sign.
So, let's recap, we have a document from the Canadian company which states the price for paid for the boat in Canadian dollars. We have another document created by the Customs Department using data taken from the document provided by the Canadian company that uses the same number but states that it is U.S. dollars. The question for you is, who made the mistake, the Canadian company which said that it was paid in Canadian dollars, or the U.S. Customs Service which said that the Canadian company was paid in U.S. dollars?
The customs paperwork on a shipment was screwed up.
By the customs department, not the company or the private individual. If the company shipping the boat had made the error, or Arrington himself, this would be appropriate.
Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.
their web site sounds like it has all of he subtlety and morality of a Karl Rove political ad campaign.
Well then at least it is more honest and upfront than a David Axelrod political ad campaign (or any of the anti-billionaire ads from organizations sponsored by George Soros).
if birth control is against your religion, don't take it. But denying others access to it is imposing your religious beliefs on others.
Who was suggesting that others be denied access? Obama wants to make you pay for someone else's birth control. Why should you or I be required to pay for someone else's birth control. This is not a question of access. This is a question of making someone else pay for it. In particular it is a question of making someone else pay for something they consider to be murder.
If, during the Bush years, the Democrats filibustered nearly every appointee and bill from the Republicans, you would have lost your friggin mind.
Um, they did to the same degree or greater than the Republicans have under Obama. As to the CFPB, if Bush had created that monstrosity, you would be screaming your head off (hint, it has the power to decide what companies it regulates on the basis of its Director's decision that the company is critical to the financial markets, even if the company is not part of the financial markets). Why anybody thinks that a bill that was created by two of the loudest opponents of fixing the problems in the financial markets before the meltdown were the right guys to craft the law to fix the problems after the meltdown is a mystery to me.
The original poster answered with an answer that made sense. Your answer makes no sense. You seem to be saying that if I give to charity than I believe that people have "right" to food, health care and/or housing.
What does it mean to say that someone has "right to food, health care and a roof"? I will ask again, do you mean that someone should provide you with those things? Or do you mean, as my reading of the OP's response, that you have the right to provide yourself with those things and the government should not interfere? I can support the latter, but I cannot support the idea that you are somehow obligated to provide me with any of those three things. I will do everything I can to help those who are lacking those three things obtain them, but I do not feel that I have the right to force someone else to provide them to either myself or another.
No, this is a study of the happiness of Twits, some of whom are technically savvy people, but most of whom are just twits. It does not take any technical savvy to be on Twitter.
Gallup does a "well-being" poll (the factors they use to determine "well-being" correlate pretty well with happiness). While the Gallup poll agrees that Hawaii is the "happiest", the rest of their poll comes out significantly different. For example, the Twit survey from this article has Florida as above the median for happiness, the Gallup poll has them third from the bottom. Another example, this Twit poll puts Maryland near the bottom, while Gallup puts it near the top. The real problem with the Twit survey is that states that are vacation destinations will have a disproportionate representation of people who are not involved in their daily grind. I suspect That not only are people who are on vacation more likely to be happy, those that are Twits probably tweet more while on vacation.
Right because the guy who proposes the alternative has no bias on this issue...wait, the guy suggesting the alternative hypothesis happens to work for the city which might be on the hook for those medical expenses if the hypothesis is correct. Note that the argument for the alternative hypothesis looks a lot like the type of arguments the tobacco companies made against the early studies linking cigarettes to cance.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no I don't. Unless you are talking about a question that was asked of Republican Presidential candidates, which was not a deal that was actually on the table. Rather it was purely hypothetical. In which case, of course they stated that they would reject it. If they had said they would take it and then won the election, the Democrats would have claimed that that was the place to start negotiating on taxes and spending cuts. Of course one of the biggest problems we have in this discussion is that when Democrats talk about "spending cuts" they don't mean actual cuts. What they really mean is reducing the amount that spending increases compared to what they had projected that they would increase spending.
Why did the Senate (and Obama) have to wait until now to act on those bills? The Senate could have passed those bills last year. Why should the House pass the bills again when the Senate has refused to even consider them?
WE have been down the road of "raise taxes now and cut spending later" before. Yet it seems that spending never gets reduced. Maybe the reason that Republicans think that cutting spending is the only way to fix the budget has something to do with how loud the Democrats scream about things like this when the only thing about to happen is that spending won't
increase by as much as it would have if not for this. If people like you are this scared by the increase in spending slowing down, how are they going to react if there is ever a proposal to actually reduce spending?
the Republicans have failed to budge from their stance against taxing the wealthy.
I thought they already gave Obama the tax increase he wanted at the beginning of the year. Obama was claiming that if they gave him a tax increase during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations than the sequester negotiations would be all about budget cuts.
Well, if the Senate would pass a budget then we would have some idea of what sort of budget might pass the Senate (and if it is reasonable to expect the House to pass such a budget). Since the Senate has not done so in somewhere around four years, the House has no way of knowing what kind of budget would pass the Senate and have reason to believe that the answer is that NO budget will pass the Senate. If the Senate will not pass any budget, how is the House supposed to pass one that has a chance to pass the Senate?
Think tanks, superpacs, etc funded by the hyper-rich create policy...
By hyper-rich, you mean people like George Soros...Oops, no I guess not, since his money goes to think tanks and super-pacs that create policy for the Democratic Party...and ostracize those Democratic politicians who do not hew sufficiently close to the line on those policies. Or maybe you mean Herb and Marion Sandler, the couple who profited off of the banking practices that led to the financial meltdown and sold their company just before the collapse? Oh no, you must not mean them, they support Democratic Party think tanks and Super PACs as well.
You mean the House Republicans who passed not one but two bills as alternatives to replace sequestration while the Senate Democrats did nothing (except to complain that the Republicans hadn't agreed to raise taxes even more) and when the President finally actually proposed something it included mostly more tax increases and a lot of "cuts" that were undefined.
Of course, the other part of your post that I have to challenge is the idea that cutting the amount that government spending increases will somehow "cripple" the government. Not only are the cuts in this sequestration not significant, they are merely reductions in how much federal spending will increase not reductions in actual amounts spent.
It's a nerd currency,
Oh, so, it's kind of like Magic, the Gathering cards, except there isn't a game designed around it.
You're right. Well, I'm not so much weary of Bitcoins as I am of stories about them.
As a few others have pointed out, the point the original poster was making was NOT that the police would do anything about the problem. The OP's point was that by contacting the local police and filling out a police report, you have a paper trail that something is going on, so that down the road, if this person is successful you can document that you were aware of it and took steps to address the problem. Of course it is important that when you contact the police you make it clear that you do not expect that they can or will do anything about it. You let them know that you are contacting them so that you have an official record of the problem and so that if by some remote chance the information you are providing them connects to other information they have received they have it to add into their case files.
Oh, I have a game I play with those as well. I give them a fictitious name who claims to be interested. Then when they call for that person, I tell them he just stepped out, but should be back in five minutes. When they call back (always longer then five minutes later), "Oh, you just missed him. He went out for lunch (or some such). He should be back in half an hour." Of course it is always more than half an hour before they call back. When they do call back, I tell them that he went to bed, went out for the evening, or something similar and how disappointed he will be that he missed their call, please try again tomorrow. I have never had somebody call me back again the next day at that point. Basically, I play a game seeing how much of their time I can use up. Time is money to these people, they hate wasting it on someone who doesn't buy (if more people would waste an actual person's time with these companies they would go out of business).
I have found a way that gets me off of these lists. All of the automated calls, sooner or later, connect you to someone whose job it is to take down your information so that they can get your money. I always indicate that I am interested. Then when I start talking to someone, I ask questions indicating that I am interested but don't quite understand what they are offering. If I have time, I keep them on the line as long as possible before telling them I think they are the scum of the earth for being involved with such a scam. If I don't at least have time to talk to a real person, I don't answer the phone. It's interesting that after I talk to someone, it is month's before they call me again. A live person costs them money. They don't like it when you talk to a live person and don't "buy".
I love it. I make a comment to point out that the OP is interjecting a political view (in a troll like manner) into a non-political discussion, but I'm the one moderated "Flamebait".
The conversation should have gone like this:
MGR: "Device drivers are something that only someone with a college degree should write."
You: "Well, Ok, the second best guy for the job is...(somebody on the staff with a college degree). I would have thought you wanted the guy who would do the best job, but it's your call."
If you read the article you would discover that the number on the document he was asked to sign was taken directly from the invoice printed by the company...except it was converted from the Canadian dollars on the invoice into U.S. dollars are the form which the government created and asked him to sign.
So, let's recap, we have a document from the Canadian company which states the price for paid for the boat in Canadian dollars. We have another document created by the Customs Department using data taken from the document provided by the Canadian company that uses the same number but states that it is U.S. dollars. The question for you is, who made the mistake, the Canadian company which said that it was paid in Canadian dollars, or the U.S. Customs Service which said that the Canadian company was paid in U.S. dollars?
Tamiflu is NOT a vaccine.
The Constitution isn't scripture handed down by gods, but the flawed work of people like our current politicians and society.
Which is why the Framers included a provision for making changes to the Constitution.
The customs paperwork on a shipment was screwed up.
By the customs department, not the company or the private individual. If the company shipping the boat had made the error, or Arrington himself, this would be appropriate.
Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.
their web site sounds like it has all of he subtlety and morality of a Karl Rove political ad campaign.
Well then at least it is more honest and upfront than a David Axelrod political ad campaign (or any of the anti-billionaire ads from organizations sponsored by George Soros).
if birth control is against your religion, don't take it. But denying others access to it is imposing your religious beliefs on others.
Who was suggesting that others be denied access? Obama wants to make you pay for someone else's birth control. Why should you or I be required to pay for someone else's birth control. This is not a question of access. This is a question of making someone else pay for it. In particular it is a question of making someone else pay for something they consider to be murder.
If, during the Bush years, the Democrats filibustered nearly every appointee and bill from the Republicans, you would have lost your friggin mind.
Um, they did to the same degree or greater than the Republicans have under Obama. As to the CFPB, if Bush had created that monstrosity, you would be screaming your head off (hint, it has the power to decide what companies it regulates on the basis of its Director's decision that the company is critical to the financial markets, even if the company is not part of the financial markets). Why anybody thinks that a bill that was created by two of the loudest opponents of fixing the problems in the financial markets before the meltdown were the right guys to craft the law to fix the problems after the meltdown is a mystery to me.
The original poster answered with an answer that made sense. Your answer makes no sense. You seem to be saying that if I give to charity than I believe that people have "right" to food, health care and/or housing.
What does it mean to say that someone has "right to food, health care and a roof"? I will ask again, do you mean that someone should provide you with those things? Or do you mean, as my reading of the OP's response, that you have the right to provide yourself with those things and the government should not interfere? I can support the latter, but I cannot support the idea that you are somehow obligated to provide me with any of those three things. I will do everything I can to help those who are lacking those three things obtain them, but I do not feel that I have the right to force someone else to provide them to either myself or another.
No, this is a study of the happiness of Twits, some of whom are technically savvy people, but most of whom are just twits. It does not take any technical savvy to be on Twitter.
Except that according to the Gallup poll several of them do not show up as happy places.
Gallup does a "well-being" poll (the factors they use to determine "well-being" correlate pretty well with happiness). While the Gallup poll agrees that Hawaii is the "happiest", the rest of their poll comes out significantly different. For example, the Twit survey from this article has Florida as above the median for happiness, the Gallup poll has them third from the bottom. Another example, this Twit poll puts Maryland near the bottom, while Gallup puts it near the top. The real problem with the Twit survey is that states that are vacation destinations will have a disproportionate representation of people who are not involved in their daily grind. I suspect That not only are people who are on vacation more likely to be happy, those that are Twits probably tweet more while on vacation.
Right because the guy who proposes the alternative has no bias on this issue...wait, the guy suggesting the alternative hypothesis happens to work for the city which might be on the hook for those medical expenses if the hypothesis is correct. Note that the argument for the alternative hypothesis looks a lot like the type of arguments the tobacco companies made against the early studies linking cigarettes to cance.