Ummm, no it's not because I'm a Christian, it's because I think that the research on man-made climate change isn't conclusive. There's plenty of evidence out there that disputes it.
I agree with you on the results of 1, but I think there has been far too political an element to it, and the proponents of the man-made element (which I should have included) are simply trying to make a political point.
On 2, the viability is suspect - we probably can't get all we need from "clean" sources, but I do support putting money toward them. Hence the need for nuclear. Most conservatives probably agree with me on that point.
Carbon credits are, IMHO, a "follow the money" issue and see whose pockets get lined, and not much more than that. Think Enron with those things, and you get where that's going to wind up.
Agree on the final two points, but it depends on the idiots in Washington whether or not to kowtow to the fears of a vocal minority.
The answer is the same, anyway. I'm not sure the preposition matters. We're going to need more centralized sources of energy to power the batteries for electric cars.
Not really. Many conservatives disbelieve in man-made global climate change; are FOR nuclear energy (which is cleaner and safer than its naysayers represent); think "carbon credits" are more or less a scam; and that we're going to need to ramp up more centralized sources of power if we're going to charge up electric cars. Also, there's a certain unlikeliness of being able to get all we need from solar or wind, simply because of the amount of land required.
No, what I'm saying is that your data doesn't cover all the bases. If I don't extend my data, then I am wrong for looking at something so narrow-minded.
You just went on a non sequiter. You really need to refute what my argument was, anyway.
I was REALLY surprised that those didn't get Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or someone of their ilk riled up. Someone could have easily skewed those un-pimp commercials with racist undertones or something...
Incomplete picture - it TOTALLY misses the 1980s, when capital investment rose dramatically and more people entered the middle class than most previous periods in American history. the explanation of the graph also doesn't take into account other issues during the economy, such as how it may have assisted the growing economy of the late 1990s - or even aided the weak economy in the last year or so. There's NO argument against it, as well, and if what you are looking at is true, I can see NO reason why we need to raise capital gains taxes, anyway. That money is in the hands of people who have a better clue what to do with it than the government.
Same with BMW. Great irony - it's cheaper for foreign auto makers to assemble here in the USA than it is for the Big Three...mostly because of overbearing union activity. The American auto industry needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It's probably going to happen with one of the new electric car manufacturers, but there's room here for a new American auto company if someone wants to risk the billions+ $$ investment to do it from scratch.
Communism sucks worse. It's called working on a salary - the expectation is to do the job, and get paid for doing the job. Yeah, working for a big corporation can suck at times because to really get ahead there you have to do OYOT stuff, but that's something that society's most productive - and essential - members will ALWAYS do.
That being said, state law typically trumps any/all contract law - if the contract signed was illegal, then you're not held to it.
I don't get paid for showing up to work per hour. I get paid to work and do a job.
We're in America - we're free to fail, and I think that people don't like that sometimes - they felt they are owed for simply trying. You're not. Hence the complaints about stupid stuff like this where people FEEL "trapped" when they're not in it as much as they think they are. Successful people don't whine about their circumstances - they go out and try to change them.
I'm waiting for some American to run up to a weenie non-US soccer player as he wallows on the ground in a fake injury, and taunt him with some sort of "pretend crying" or something. I REALLY hate that aspect of the sport. It's creeped into basketball as well. Go friggin play rugby, American football, or Aussie (INSANE) rules football, or hockey. Bunch of wusses, I call 'em.
The dollar is NOT "killed forever." You'll probably see that once it gains some of its value back when we recover from this correction (any reference to a "recession" is sheer idiocy). Particularly in an increasingly global market, we almost need a weaker dollar to compete by selling more American-made products.
You're falling for the fallacy that a weak dollar=a bad dollar, which isn't necessarily true. We sell more stuff to foreign markets when the dollar is down - they're buying real estate in droves, in particular. Yes, the government spends too much money, but the key to that is to spend less, not tax more (Reagan proved that low taxes bring in revenue because of increased productivity), and yes, decrease our role in foreign efforts.
You're also not keeping much in perspective - in the Great Depression, the effect of the stock market at that time has been exaggerated over the years - and we recovered. Yeah, it was a period which stunk, but to imagine that things are all crap-gone-to-hell again is lunacy. A down market means opportunity, and more and more people are realizing that, and are "buying in" which is why we're not seeing - and probably won't see - a serious crash. If a bank like Indymac can fail and we can pretty much forget about it two weeks later, we're doing pretty well.
Blaming the President won't put money in your pocket or make you a smart investor. That's up to you.
Short sellers are all over the place. They accentuate when the market is down and make money.
It's getting time to sell those Euros, by the way, and reinvest in the American market - the dollar is going to go up over the next year with the fed raising rates soon.
You may want to consider selling soon, anyway, because if Obama wins, the capital gains tax you'll pay on any profit you realize will double....and Presidents only have a minor affect on any economy. We'd have been WAY worse off with some of the idiot Dem policies that would have put more money in government coffers rather than in the hands of people who actually know what to do with it. I would say Bush's policies have negated some of the damage because we can keep more of that money in our own pockets. The only problem is that the middle class needs even more relief.
You're missing out on a lot of good the SEC has done in the last few years, then. They're the only guys not out glory-hogging and actually doing a few things to keep the market and regulations under control. They've limited - and are trying to further limit - naked short-selling and blatant stock manipulation; and, in particular, they did about as well as they could in the whole Bear Stearns debacle:
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13479 - yes, I know it's the Spectator, but it's a good review of Chris Cox. If you're mad at the government for actually staying out of the way of businesses, you're not being smart with your money. Overpaid CEO's of failing companies are a DROP in the bucket of everything that matters right now, and if that's your sole concern, you're going to lose out at one of the best times to buy into the market in your lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Never disputed that, and I should've used the "man-made" description in my original post. The rest of the thread is pretty decent discussion.
Ummm, no it's not because I'm a Christian, it's because I think that the research on man-made climate change isn't conclusive. There's plenty of evidence out there that disputes it.
I agree with you on the results of 1, but I think there has been far too political an element to it, and the proponents of the man-made element (which I should have included) are simply trying to make a political point.
On 2, the viability is suspect - we probably can't get all we need from "clean" sources, but I do support putting money toward them. Hence the need for nuclear. Most conservatives probably agree with me on that point.
Carbon credits are, IMHO, a "follow the money" issue and see whose pockets get lined, and not much more than that. Think Enron with those things, and you get where that's going to wind up.
Agree on the final two points, but it depends on the idiots in Washington whether or not to kowtow to the fears of a vocal minority.
The answer is the same, anyway. I'm not sure the preposition matters. We're going to need more centralized sources of energy to power the batteries for electric cars.
Trying to find...wait....ummm....what? PLEASE explain, because I'm trying to see where there's some sort of "bigoted" statement I made.
Not really. Many conservatives disbelieve in man-made global climate change; are FOR nuclear energy (which is cleaner and safer than its naysayers represent); think "carbon credits" are more or less a scam; and that we're going to need to ramp up more centralized sources of power if we're going to charge up electric cars. Also, there's a certain unlikeliness of being able to get all we need from solar or wind, simply because of the amount of land required.
Amazing. You just insulted the intelligence of nearly every scientist up until the 20th century, and many of the ones after.
It's a LIST! I'm not going for complete sentences with the thing.
I suspect that most of the reaction is about those who believe in creation (or even God for that matter); I could list several more:
1. Global climate change
2. Viability of alternate energy sources
3. Carbon credits
4. "Scary" parts of nuclear power.
5. Where the power from the electric car will come from.
I'm certain there's more. Disclaimer: I'm a conservative, which probably gives you some sort of impression of my views on the above.
Better living through chemistry!
Please make note that there are ignorant LEFTIES as well, and that this didn't occur in some religious-frenzied backwater.
No, what I'm saying is that your data doesn't cover all the bases. If I don't extend my data, then I am wrong for looking at something so narrow-minded.
You just went on a non sequiter. You really need to refute what my argument was, anyway.
I was REALLY surprised that those didn't get Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or someone of their ilk riled up. Someone could have easily skewed those un-pimp commercials with racist undertones or something...
So, in other words...he was beat with a Beowulf cluster of those!
Incomplete picture - it TOTALLY misses the 1980s, when capital investment rose dramatically and more people entered the middle class than most previous periods in American history. the explanation of the graph also doesn't take into account other issues during the economy, such as how it may have assisted the growing economy of the late 1990s - or even aided the weak economy in the last year or so. There's NO argument against it, as well, and if what you are looking at is true, I can see NO reason why we need to raise capital gains taxes, anyway. That money is in the hands of people who have a better clue what to do with it than the government.
What % of your contributions go to administration as opposed to real charity work?
Same with BMW. Great irony - it's cheaper for foreign auto makers to assemble here in the USA than it is for the Big Three...mostly because of overbearing union activity. The American auto industry needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It's probably going to happen with one of the new electric car manufacturers, but there's room here for a new American auto company if someone wants to risk the billions+ $$ investment to do it from scratch.
Communism sucks worse. It's called working on a salary - the expectation is to do the job, and get paid for doing the job. Yeah, working for a big corporation can suck at times because to really get ahead there you have to do OYOT stuff, but that's something that society's most productive - and essential - members will ALWAYS do.
That being said, state law typically trumps any/all contract law - if the contract signed was illegal, then you're not held to it.
I don't get paid for showing up to work per hour. I get paid to work and do a job.
We're in America - we're free to fail, and I think that people don't like that sometimes - they felt they are owed for simply trying. You're not. Hence the complaints about stupid stuff like this where people FEEL "trapped" when they're not in it as much as they think they are. Successful people don't whine about their circumstances - they go out and try to change them.
Probably means they worked a regular 40-hour/week schedule. Of course, were they actually WORKING?
Sorry, but the jab at the "left coast" was a little too easy here. It IS Taxifornia, after all...
Killed in your sleep? You would be lucky to make off the field after the first half.
Best Bobby "the Brain" Heenan Line EVER:
Schiavone: Two plus two equals FOUR, Bobby.
Bobby: Not if you get the deal.
I'm waiting for some American to run up to a weenie non-US soccer player as he wallows on the ground in a fake injury, and taunt him with some sort of "pretend crying" or something. I REALLY hate that aspect of the sport. It's creeped into basketball as well. Go friggin play rugby, American football, or Aussie (INSANE) rules football, or hockey. Bunch of wusses, I call 'em.
No, no, ./ is news that matters, stuff for nerds. This is /., which is just random news stories that have even less relevance.
The dollar is NOT "killed forever." You'll probably see that once it gains some of its value back when we recover from this correction (any reference to a "recession" is sheer idiocy). Particularly in an increasingly global market, we almost need a weaker dollar to compete by selling more American-made products.
You're falling for the fallacy that a weak dollar=a bad dollar, which isn't necessarily true. We sell more stuff to foreign markets when the dollar is down - they're buying real estate in droves, in particular. Yes, the government spends too much money, but the key to that is to spend less, not tax more (Reagan proved that low taxes bring in revenue because of increased productivity), and yes, decrease our role in foreign efforts.
You're also not keeping much in perspective - in the Great Depression, the effect of the stock market at that time has been exaggerated over the years - and we recovered. Yeah, it was a period which stunk, but to imagine that things are all crap-gone-to-hell again is lunacy. A down market means opportunity, and more and more people are realizing that, and are "buying in" which is why we're not seeing - and probably won't see - a serious crash. If a bank like Indymac can fail and we can pretty much forget about it two weeks later, we're doing pretty well.
Blaming the President won't put money in your pocket or make you a smart investor. That's up to you.
Short sellers are all over the place. They accentuate when the market is down and make money.
It's getting time to sell those Euros, by the way, and reinvest in the American market - the dollar is going to go up over the next year with the fed raising rates soon.
You may want to consider selling soon, anyway, because if Obama wins, the capital gains tax you'll pay on any profit you realize will double....and Presidents only have a minor affect on any economy. We'd have been WAY worse off with some of the idiot Dem policies that would have put more money in government coffers rather than in the hands of people who actually know what to do with it. I would say Bush's policies have negated some of the damage because we can keep more of that money in our own pockets. The only problem is that the middle class needs even more relief.
You're missing out on a lot of good the SEC has done in the last few years, then. They're the only guys not out glory-hogging and actually doing a few things to keep the market and regulations under control. They've limited - and are trying to further limit - naked short-selling and blatant stock manipulation; and, in particular, they did about as well as they could in the whole Bear Stearns debacle:
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13479 - yes, I know it's the Spectator, but it's a good review of Chris Cox. If you're mad at the government for actually staying out of the way of businesses, you're not being smart with your money. Overpaid CEO's of failing companies are a DROP in the bucket of everything that matters right now, and if that's your sole concern, you're going to lose out at one of the best times to buy into the market in your lifetime.