One of Napolitano's claims, in a segment that aired on Fox Business Channel:
“At the time that [Lincoln] was the president of the United States, slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world,” Napolitano said." http://www.salon.com/2014/02/2...
Meanwhile, more slaves were alive in the United States than ever before. The international slave trade may have ended, but it was alive and well here, and slavery was expanding in the South, not contracting. Like I said, lies combined with half-truths designed to make the point that the war wasn't about slavery. And why, exactly? What's your motivation for perpetuating revisionist history? Do you even know?
Very few southereners owned slaves in the same way that very few Silicon Valley residents own tech companies. You might not be a CEO, but you sure as shit support the existence of those tech companies in the place where you're making your living.
Actually, slavery was waning and neither side considered it the primary issue.
This little tidbit of horseshit is a direct quote from Fox News's Judge Andrew Napolitano, containing tons of lies and half-truths built to support the revisionist myth that "slavery was about to go extinct of its own accord." There's far too many holes in his tripe to list them all here, but if you're interested, Jon Stewart ripped apart Napolitano's lies right to his face, with some help from three history professors: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Slavery was the main reason, as laid out in each state's declaration of secession at the time. They spelled it out plainly - "You are trying to abridge our right to own slaves and that's why we're leaving." Slavery was NOT the only reason.
You conflating the two is an effective yardstick for measuring how much you like to use rhetoric to attempt to make your point of view seem more factually based than it actually is. Nice try.
Your circular logic is ridiculous revisionist bullshit. You start with a false premise - "The South didn't have any money" - what? Slaves were worth $400 each (in 1850) but plantation owners with hundreds of slaves didn't have any assets? Guess what, worldwide demand for cotton skyrocketed from 1843 onward, and that made a lot of cotton producers very, very, rich in the 18 years leading up to the Civil War. Of course, those same people knew that if they suddenly lost their free labor, they'd be less rich, and if there's one thing a rich person hates, it's the prospect of becoming less rich. They hated the idea so much that they were willing to go to war over it, and only then did they need help from a "friend across the ocean," because wars cost money. They certainly didn't need help BEFORE they decided to secede and start a civil war.
It's true that England saw an opportunity in this to weaken the the United States, but you're attempting to put the cart before the horse in a desperate attempt to keep alive this myth of "oh it wasn't about slavery, it was about.... something else!" How you were modded informative is beyond me.
He gave you a direct quote to the South Carolina declaration, and not only that, if you actually bothered to read South Carolina's declaration, it mentions "slavery" or "slaves" 19 times, not one of which is remotely in the context of "we're not seceding because of slavery." So nice try, but yeah, all of the seceding states were pissed about the fact that they thought Lincoln's government was going to make it harder for them to keep slavery going the way they wanted it.
Good, here's one that shows average height gain from ages 20-74.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, prepared by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r041027.htm
Now I suppose you could try and tell me that we've gained another inch between 2002-2015, but I'd like to see a source for that, just as I'd like to see a source for the OP's opinion that we gained 2 inches overall.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
From wikipedia: Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", there is scant evidence he made it. Author Kevin Maney tried to find the origin of the quote, but has been unable to locate any speeches or documents of Watson's that contain this, nor are the words present in any contemporary articles about IBM. The earliest known citation on the Internet is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: "Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'" One of the very first quotes can be found in The Experts Speak, a book written by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky in 1984. However Cerf and Navasky just quote from a book written by Morgan and Langford, Facts and Fallacies. All these early quotes are questioned by Eric Weiss, an editor of the Annals of the History of Computing in ACS letters in 1985.
They do, in fact, have different levels of protection for different types of pages. For examples, biographies of living people are afforded far more protection than an article, on, say, the World Trade Center. However, when it comes to topics like the Pythagorean Theorem, the encyclopedia tends to err more to the side of openness, rather than lockdown, and trust that the community will revert any vandalism-type edits, thus also allowing easy access to anyone that has anything of substance to add. The whole idea is to make it simple for anyone to edit.
This is obviously the wrong place for that suggestion, mainly because Wikipedia has an excellent system in place for any user to submit a suggestion of that nature. If you cared enough to take the time to do it, you could end up starting a discussion there and if enough editors agreed with you, that type of major change might actually happen. I encourage you to take part and start the process.
Probably because even though it's rarely practiced in reality, we'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard of honesty than the random population typing away edits at home. This article at least sheds SOME light on that behavior when it's coming from a place we'd rather see it not come from.
Maybe. It would be even easier to just ban IP edits entirely. Of course, that's not the idea that drives Wikipedia -
Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
The article IS dealing with it. It's exposing the fact that staffers for these candidates are white-washing pages. Not sure what you're so angry about.
You're right, of course. This article only deals with British politicians, though. I've reverted anon IP edits to American politicians' pages myself; mostly it's just simple white-washing stuff that, once you add it to your watchlist, becomes really easy to spot and maintain.
Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.
I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.
I don't consult. I work. And you're assuming that the entire labor force of a business is making minimum wage, which of course is a ridiculous assumption, and thus blows your numbers right out of the water as wildly inaccurate. Keep defending your indefensible rhetoric, though; your amateur "Econ 101" combined with the fact that you're the one not running a business provides me with much entertainment.
Don't you feel stupid. I am a corporation, hiring myself out to clients, on a 100% freelance basis. So yeah, I own a business. I literally charge the maximum I feel my clients will pay, based on what I know they pay others and several other factors, and regardless of my costs. Here's where your argument really falls apart, though:
if you are forced to buy labor at a certain price, you simply must raise prices to make a profit.
Unless, of course, you're making a profit already, and the labor cost going up means you'll make slightly less profit when you continue charging the maximum that customers will pay, which will be the case in the vast majority of minimum-wage hirers.
You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.
As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
One of Napolitano's claims, in a segment that aired on Fox Business Channel:
“At the time that [Lincoln] was the president of the United States, slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world,” Napolitano said." http://www.salon.com/2014/02/2...
Meanwhile, more slaves were alive in the United States than ever before. The international slave trade may have ended, but it was alive and well here, and slavery was expanding in the South, not contracting. Like I said, lies combined with half-truths designed to make the point that the war wasn't about slavery. And why, exactly? What's your motivation for perpetuating revisionist history? Do you even know?
Very few southereners owned slaves in the same way that very few Silicon Valley residents own tech companies. You might not be a CEO, but you sure as shit support the existence of those tech companies in the place where you're making your living.
Actually, slavery was waning and neither side considered it the primary issue.
This little tidbit of horseshit is a direct quote from Fox News's Judge Andrew Napolitano, containing tons of lies and half-truths built to support the revisionist myth that "slavery was about to go extinct of its own accord." There's far too many holes in his tripe to list them all here, but if you're interested, Jon Stewart ripped apart Napolitano's lies right to his face, with some help from three history professors: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
It's highly informative.
"Main or only cause/reason"?
Those are two different things.
Slavery was the main reason, as laid out in each state's declaration of secession at the time. They spelled it out plainly - "You are trying to abridge our right to own slaves and that's why we're leaving." Slavery was NOT the only reason.
You conflating the two is an effective yardstick for measuring how much you like to use rhetoric to attempt to make your point of view seem more factually based than it actually is. Nice try.
Your circular logic is ridiculous revisionist bullshit. You start with a false premise - "The South didn't have any money" - what? Slaves were worth $400 each (in 1850) but plantation owners with hundreds of slaves didn't have any assets? Guess what, worldwide demand for cotton skyrocketed from 1843 onward, and that made a lot of cotton producers very, very, rich in the 18 years leading up to the Civil War. Of course, those same people knew that if they suddenly lost their free labor, they'd be less rich, and if there's one thing a rich person hates, it's the prospect of becoming less rich. They hated the idea so much that they were willing to go to war over it, and only then did they need help from a "friend across the ocean," because wars cost money. They certainly didn't need help BEFORE they decided to secede and start a civil war.
It's true that England saw an opportunity in this to weaken the the United States, but you're attempting to put the cart before the horse in a desperate attempt to keep alive this myth of "oh it wasn't about slavery, it was about .... something else!" How you were modded informative is beyond me.
He gave you a direct quote to the South Carolina declaration, and not only that, if you actually bothered to read South Carolina's declaration, it mentions "slavery" or "slaves" 19 times, not one of which is remotely in the context of "we're not seceding because of slavery." So nice try, but yeah, all of the seceding states were pissed about the fact that they thought Lincoln's government was going to make it harder for them to keep slavery going the way they wanted it.
The blatant lie is yours and yours alone.
The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.... It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
Gee, I wonder if one of those has anything to do with the other.
Hey, while we're on this logical path, make all guns legal, for anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Just regulate the bullets.
Good, here's one that shows average height gain from ages 20-74.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, prepared by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r041027.htm
Now I suppose you could try and tell me that we've gained another inch between 2002-2015, but I'd like to see a source for that, just as I'd like to see a source for the OP's opinion that we gained 2 inches overall.
I know you don't read the article in your giddy rush to get first post, but christ, that exact point was made in the fucking summary.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
From wikipedia: Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", there is scant evidence he made it. Author Kevin Maney tried to find the origin of the quote, but has been unable to locate any speeches or documents of Watson's that contain this, nor are the words present in any contemporary articles about IBM. The earliest known citation on the Internet is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: "Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'" One of the very first quotes can be found in The Experts Speak, a book written by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky in 1984. However Cerf and Navasky just quote from a book written by Morgan and Langford, Facts and Fallacies. All these early quotes are questioned by Eric Weiss, an editor of the Annals of the History of Computing in ACS letters in 1985.
Nice off-topic method of crow-barring in your opposition to the ACA, troll. No one cares.
I'd like to see a source for these numbers that you're using as an excuse to give us your political views.
The artist who is doing well has ALWAYS been the exception and not the rule.
They do, in fact, have different levels of protection for different types of pages. For examples, biographies of living people are afforded far more protection than an article, on, say, the World Trade Center. However, when it comes to topics like the Pythagorean Theorem, the encyclopedia tends to err more to the side of openness, rather than lockdown, and trust that the community will revert any vandalism-type edits, thus also allowing easy access to anyone that has anything of substance to add. The whole idea is to make it simple for anyone to edit.
This is obviously the wrong place for that suggestion, mainly because Wikipedia has an excellent system in place for any user to submit a suggestion of that nature. If you cared enough to take the time to do it, you could end up starting a discussion there and if enough editors agreed with you, that type of major change might actually happen. I encourage you to take part and start the process.
Probably because even though it's rarely practiced in reality, we'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard of honesty than the random population typing away edits at home. This article at least sheds SOME light on that behavior when it's coming from a place we'd rather see it not come from.
Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The article IS dealing with it. It's exposing the fact that staffers for these candidates are white-washing pages. Not sure what you're so angry about.
You're right, of course. This article only deals with British politicians, though. I've reverted anon IP edits to American politicians' pages myself; mostly it's just simple white-washing stuff that, once you add it to your watchlist, becomes really easy to spot and maintain.
Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.
I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.
I read Dave420's post history. I also read yours. He's a liberal, and you are a raving paranoid lunatic that no one wants to talk to.
I don't consult. I work. And you're assuming that the entire labor force of a business is making minimum wage, which of course is a ridiculous assumption, and thus blows your numbers right out of the water as wildly inaccurate. Keep defending your indefensible rhetoric, though; your amateur "Econ 101" combined with the fact that you're the one not running a business provides me with much entertainment.
Don't you feel stupid. I am a corporation, hiring myself out to clients, on a 100% freelance basis. So yeah, I own a business. I literally charge the maximum I feel my clients will pay, based on what I know they pay others and several other factors, and regardless of my costs. Here's where your argument really falls apart, though:
if you are forced to buy labor at a certain price, you simply must raise prices to make a profit.
Unless, of course, you're making a profit already, and the labor cost going up means you'll make slightly less profit when you continue charging the maximum that customers will pay, which will be the case in the vast majority of minimum-wage hirers.
Thanks for playing.
You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.
As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.