Well, greedy, selfish and egotistical more or less amount to the same thing, looking at her own self interests above anything else. I am not really sure about the evidence that this is the case with her to an unusual degree, but it might be. The same is true about most politicians, actually people in general. Same with calculating. Uneducated. Well, we all know there are many successful people without much formal education. The first thing I look for in a politician is where they stand on issues, how they have voted in the past and will likely vote in the future, not so much if they are nice people. Part of me is annoyed by the treatment she gets because it seems unfair, and part of me is just annoyed that she is kept in the spotlight and made to look like a victim which might only increase her support.
I am just personally tired both of Sarah Palin and of the left's hatred of her that borders on psychotic. She is a mediocre politician who would never be talked about if McCain didn't make a mistake of choosing her as his running mate.
Having said that, all the vitriol about her just doesn't make sense to me. Whenever I ask a liberal, who at the mention of the name starts foaming at the mouth and screaming something like "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare" why exactly they hate her so much, I never get a satisfying answer. She misspoke a bunch of times but so has Obama and don't get me started on Biden. She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much. It seems to be a pattern that any woman with strong political beliefs, particularly on conservative side, tends to bring out really deep hatred in both women and men who disagree with her politically.
That's what he's saying. It's intro to macroeconomics.
Not at all. It is at best an intro to Keynsian economics which has been thoroughly discredited and is essentially based on a broken window fallacy. The question both of you are ignoring is where the money comes from initially before the government pays for all those roads and bridges.
Your argument is a form of the tired old broken window fallacy. You forget that before the government pays for the transportation system it has to first take that money from the citizens pockets, therefore preventing that same amount of money from being used in other ways. If building a transportation system was an efficient use of that money, then the market would drive private investments there. If not, it would be invested elsewhere. Government may need to invest in infrastructure sometimes, but that is only because it is impractical for the private sector to, for example, build roads and collect toll on every road etc. It is not because it magically adds wealth to the economy out of thin air.
Really, now, this is all quite obvious. Why on earth does all of this need to be explained?
That's right because perpetually increasing the spending and raising money through only ways government can, i.e. taxes, debt and inflation (all taxes by another name) is the way to grow the economy. Debt per taxpayer was $55K in 2000, it is $127K not and projected to be $184K in 5 years at current rates. But who cares, it is only our children who will be paying it.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that government spending keeps millions of people employed that otherwise wouldn't be, and that somehow the tax returns of those people more than make up for that spending? This argument is not just wrong economically and arithmetically but aesthetically too.
1, 2, 3, 4... then 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4... pretty soon you'd get the pattern and figure out those are numbers. can i draw pictures? if so, it's easy. if not then i would use math to describe something you know about, like days, years, atomic numbers etc and assign them names. by then we would have some start of a vocabulary and build from there. it would be difficult at first but once you have a few simple words it would get easier
Hmm, you need to provide some evidence there. I know he is against gay marriage but that doesn't even necessarily make him a homophobe, never mind a white supremacist.
Mails were sent providing patches and explanations of how to deal with the conficker virus.
Yeah, and from your perspective as (I assume) an IT guy, that was sufficient. But from the perspective of a random employee for whom computer is just a tool to get their actual job done, dealing with patches and explanations about "worms" (or is it snails) is an annoying and time consuming distraction. Especially when there is one update or another asking you to install and reboot just about every day, forcing you to close and reopen all the programs you are using etc. Not saying that there is a perfect solution, just that blaming "dumb" users for everything is a cheap cop out.
The real issue: software industry releases insecure products and blames ordinary users for not being IT security experts which is what it takes to be truly secure.
If I say I'm "pro-left" do I at least get a token "you deserve what you should get"?
No, you should be kept around as an example of a genuine knucklehead, preferably in a corner and with a dunce hat on. I can't draw pictures here but let me try to explain it in simple words so you can understand.
What I said in your quote was that the false accusations against Tea Party in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting were themselves a form of incitement to violence - hence the record number of death threats against Palin and local psychos in Arizona threatening to kill Tea Party leaders. Did you really somehow translate this as as me saying that people who were shot there deserved to be killed?
I too want to be modded +5 Insightful for being a generalizing asshole who pigeonholes millions of people and their cultures into degrading *caricatures of themselves.
I think you better stick to being an asshole who doesn't read posts before posting angry replies to them. He was talking about states: http://hsudarren.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/map-of-freedom.gif (for those who studied geography in American school system, the purple - i.e. least free, countries are mostly Islamic except for China and couple of others)
When Sun is between the Moon and the Earth, you know, the lunar eclipse which happens once a month. Still, I think Sun's gravity will bend the laser, so you could shoot around it...
Moon to Earth is "downhill" (obviously not literally, but in the sense that it's a hell of a lot easier to go downhill than uphill) compared to Earth to Moon. In a war between Moon and Earth, Moon has the advantage which is where I believe the Heinlein mention comes from. Not sure how that has any relevance to a was between two nations on Earth though.
I think you should read that again and see if perhaps you totally misunderstood what I said. Or better still, take a reading comprehension class first and then read it.
The question was whether Islam has something to do with suicide attacks. The answer to me clearly is yes as correlation is undeniable. You seem to believe this too when you said:
There are about 8,500 people on the U.S. "no fly" list, and about 1.5 billion followers of Islam. If *all* terrorists are Muslims, you still have to sort through 175,000 profiled people to find one terrorist., apparently, and correctly, taking it as a given that a vast majority of those 8,500 are Muslims.
That does not imply in any way that every Muslim is a terrorist or that you have to be afraid of your neighbor from Pakistan. That would be ridiculous. You might as well say that it's not true that the US is, say, fighting a war in Afghanistan because not every single man, woman and child from the US is over there. Some Muslims are terrorists (very small minority, just like the US troops in Afghanistan are a small minority of US population), some are enablers and sympathizers, some are apologists and some are neutral and some are opposed to terrorism.
There are lots of ethnic issues around the world. Why is it that every time some crazy fucker blows up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be a Muslim. Coincidence?
Why is anyone surprised that Patriot act has bipartisan support? At the time it was passed all Democrat senators voted for it except for one (Feingold) and he is not in senate anymore. Democrats always supported the act, just like the Republicans did. Obama has renewed it regularly since so its a safe bet that he would have voted for it had he been in senate at the time.
Yes because obviously metaphors are to blame and should be banned immediately. At least Palin was only "targeting" districts, Democrats apparently were targeting entire states for bow and arrow attacks: http://romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/demmap.jpg
Will you just give it up already. I hope you realize that nobody is buying your false accusations and that according to polls, more people blame Democrats and Republican rhetoric for the shooting than either Palin or the Tea Party which of course is also false. Obama and most senior Democrats and even some left wing pundits (most surprisingly Rachel Maddow) have reacted to this in a very reasonable and dignified way but a few idiots like you are going to make this whole thing backfire on the Democratic party as a whole. You know, it is possible for crazy people to do crazy things without any incitement. The guy who attempted to kill Reagan was motivated by his obsession with Jodie Foster. Is that conservatives fault too?
Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
Not really. The state can go bankrupt and the California will still be the worlds 5th biggest economy. The state will just have learned a valuable lesson not to spend more than it can afford.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, greedy, selfish and egotistical more or less amount to the same thing, looking at her own self interests above anything else. I am not really sure about the evidence that this is the case with her to an unusual degree, but it might be. The same is true about most politicians, actually people in general. Same with calculating. Uneducated. Well, we all know there are many successful people without much formal education. The first thing I look for in a politician is where they stand on issues, how they have voted in the past and will likely vote in the future, not so much if they are nice people. Part of me is annoyed by the treatment she gets because it seems unfair, and part of me is just annoyed that she is kept in the spotlight and made to look like a victim which might only increase her support.
I am just personally tired both of Sarah Palin and of the left's hatred of her that borders on psychotic. She is a mediocre politician who would never be talked about if McCain didn't make a mistake of choosing her as his running mate.
Having said that, all the vitriol about her just doesn't make sense to me. Whenever I ask a liberal, who at the mention of the name starts foaming at the mouth and screaming something like "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare" why exactly they hate her so much, I never get a satisfying answer. She misspoke a bunch of times but so has Obama and don't get me started on Biden. She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much. It seems to be a pattern that any woman with strong political beliefs, particularly on conservative side, tends to bring out really deep hatred in both women and men who disagree with her politically.
Not at all. It is at best an intro to Keynsian economics which has been thoroughly discredited and is essentially based on a broken window fallacy. The question both of you are ignoring is where the money comes from initially before the government pays for all those roads and bridges.
Your argument is a form of the tired old broken window fallacy. You forget that before the government pays for the transportation system it has to first take that money from the citizens pockets, therefore preventing that same amount of money from being used in other ways. If building a transportation system was an efficient use of that money, then the market would drive private investments there. If not, it would be invested elsewhere. Government may need to invest in infrastructure sometimes, but that is only because it is impractical for the private sector to, for example, build roads and collect toll on every road etc. It is not because it magically adds wealth to the economy out of thin air.
Really, now, this is all quite obvious. Why on earth does all of this need to be explained?
Exactly my question.
That's right because perpetually increasing the spending and raising money through only ways government can, i.e. taxes, debt and inflation (all taxes by another name) is the way to grow the economy. Debt per taxpayer was $55K in 2000, it is $127K not and projected to be $184K in 5 years at current rates. But who cares, it is only our children who will be paying it.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that government spending keeps millions of people employed that otherwise wouldn't be, and that somehow the tax returns of those people more than make up for that spending? This argument is not just wrong economically and arithmetically but aesthetically too.
1, 2, 3, 4 ... then 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4 ... pretty soon you'd get the pattern and figure out those are numbers. can i draw pictures? if so, it's easy. if not then i would use math to describe something you know about, like days, years, atomic numbers etc and assign them names. by then we would have some start of a vocabulary and build from there. it would be difficult at first but once you have a few simple words it would get easier
Hmm, you need to provide some evidence there. I know he is against gay marriage but that doesn't even necessarily make him a homophobe, never mind a white supremacist.
Yeah, and from your perspective as (I assume) an IT guy, that was sufficient. But from the perspective of a random employee for whom computer is just a tool to get their actual job done, dealing with patches and explanations about "worms" (or is it snails) is an annoying and time consuming distraction. Especially when there is one update or another asking you to install and reboot just about every day, forcing you to close and reopen all the programs you are using etc. Not saying that there is a perfect solution, just that blaming "dumb" users for everything is a cheap cop out.
The real issue: software industry releases insecure products and blames ordinary users for not being IT security experts which is what it takes to be truly secure.
No, you should be kept around as an example of a genuine knucklehead, preferably in a corner and with a dunce hat on. I can't draw pictures here but let me try to explain it in simple words so you can understand.
What I said in your quote was that the false accusations against Tea Party in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting were themselves a form of incitement to violence - hence the record number of death threats against Palin and local psychos in Arizona threatening to kill Tea Party leaders. Did you really somehow translate this as as me saying that people who were shot there deserved to be killed?
I think you better stick to being an asshole who doesn't read posts before posting angry replies to them. He was talking about states: http://hsudarren.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/map-of-freedom.gif (for those who studied geography in American school system, the purple - i.e. least free, countries are mostly Islamic except for China and couple of others)
When Sun is between the Moon and the Earth, you know, the lunar eclipse which happens once a month. Still, I think Sun's gravity will bend the laser, so you could shoot around it...
Moon to Earth is "downhill" (obviously not literally, but in the sense that it's a hell of a lot easier to go downhill than uphill) compared to Earth to Moon. In a war between Moon and Earth, Moon has the advantage which is where I believe the Heinlein mention comes from. Not sure how that has any relevance to a was between two nations on Earth though.
That's a dumb quote. Both of them were using fiction to communicate their ideas.
I think you should read that again and see if perhaps you totally misunderstood what I said. Or better still, take a reading comprehension class first and then read it.
The question was whether Islam has something to do with suicide attacks. The answer to me clearly is yes as correlation is undeniable. You seem to believe this too when you said:
There are about 8,500 people on the U.S. "no fly" list, and about 1.5 billion followers of Islam. If *all* terrorists are Muslims, you still have to sort through 175,000 profiled people to find one terrorist., apparently, and correctly, taking it as a given that a vast majority of those 8,500 are Muslims.
That does not imply in any way that every Muslim is a terrorist or that you have to be afraid of your neighbor from Pakistan. That would be ridiculous. You might as well say that it's not true that the US is, say, fighting a war in Afghanistan because not every single man, woman and child from the US is over there. Some Muslims are terrorists (very small minority, just like the US troops in Afghanistan are a small minority of US population), some are enablers and sympathizers, some are apologists and some are neutral and some are opposed to terrorism.
There are lots of ethnic issues around the world. Why is it that every time some crazy fucker blows up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be a Muslim. Coincidence?
That's a myth. The biggest part of the debt is the social security trust "fund", which is "held" by future retirees.
Not if 2/3 of the congress votes for it. But that's not the issue as he clearly does not want to veto it anyway.
Why is anyone surprised that Patriot act has bipartisan support? At the time it was passed all Democrat senators voted for it except for one (Feingold) and he is not in senate anymore. Democrats always supported the act, just like the Republicans did. Obama has renewed it regularly since so its a safe bet that he would have voted for it had he been in senate at the time.
Yes because obviously metaphors are to blame and should be banned immediately. At least Palin was only "targeting" districts, Democrats apparently were targeting entire states for bow and arrow attacks: http://romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/demmap.jpg
Will you just give it up already. I hope you realize that nobody is buying your false accusations and that according to polls, more people blame Democrats and Republican rhetoric for the shooting than either Palin or the Tea Party which of course is also false. Obama and most senior Democrats and even some left wing pundits (most surprisingly Rachel Maddow) have reacted to this in a very reasonable and dignified way but a few idiots like you are going to make this whole thing backfire on the Democratic party as a whole. You know, it is possible for crazy people to do crazy things without any incitement. The guy who attempted to kill Reagan was motivated by his obsession with Jodie Foster. Is that conservatives fault too?
If you don't obey our privacy laws, you American silly persons, we shall taunt you!
Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
Not really. The state can go bankrupt and the California will still be the worlds 5th biggest economy. The state will just have learned a valuable lesson not to spend more than it can afford.