I looked at your link that shows businesses get to deduct business expenses from their income, and determine their taxable income from that reduced amount.
You definition of "giving" must be different than mine.
This is why I love debating you guys. Whenever your opponents ask a direct question that will derail your arguments, the response is to change the entire conversation to avoid it.
Your comment is just gibberish to avoid my question about whether temperature proxies show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to be regional or global.
But, I'll wait for interkin3tic to respond, since he was the one who implied they were local.
Like Blackraven said, 40.1% can prevent legislation from being enacted.
Yes, and Blackraven is essentially correct. However that is not what you stated. You stated that 40.1% can "run roughshod over the 59.9%." That is categorically false. Insisting legislation is debated and amended until you feel it has met your concerns is not running roughshod. It is called being a politician. But beyond that, you are arguing that the Senate is not being run according to its design, while the filibuster is exactly what the founding fathers wanted for that chamber, for these exact reasons.
If you're too lazy and or stupid to understand that,
That's funny, the ignorant calling their opposition stupid. As I just said, the Senate is designed to do what you are claiming is destroying it.
then I'm clearly wasting my time. BTW, AFAIK the GOP is using the filibuster far more frequently than the Democrats were back during the Bush administration. The Democrats were at least trying to work with Bush, who refused to work with them in most cases, whereas the GOP isn't even pretending like they're trying to work with the Democrats now.
I answered in why the Republicans are using the filibuster when the Democrats didn't. It's because when the Republicans were in charge , they acted like a pack of cowardly dogs, afraid of their own shadows. They'll howl to let you know they are there, but when the time comes to act, they cave to the false "public sentiment" that the media concocts to support the Democrats. Time and again. And it still is happening with Speaker Boehner in the House. That's a big reason I don't vote for Republicans.
When I click on it, a yellow 'shield' with a crossing guard figure appears, with this message:
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.
What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.
The problem with hoping that new areas will be available to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is that it assumes that the location where you put the chair will be as hospitable as the last. For organisms that have extremely specific biological requirements and that evolved essentially within narrow habitats over the course of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, the probability of that happening rapidly approaches zero....
You do realize the species we have today survived the last Ice Age when glaciers covered half of the northern continents. Right? There is no niche that's been constant for millions of years, or even tens of thousands.
That's my point in regards to Reagan, and blaming past presidents. Some are blamed for long term changes made by legislation they pushed through Congress. Some people still blame Reagan for late flights because he fired the air traffic controllers in 1981.
He's blamed for other things as well, but that is the one that I find ridiculous.
Well, I can't really blame them. When I was a teenager (in the 1980s), I thought the Equator must go through the Sahara Desert, that's why it is so hot there.
Even after Geography class and traveling, it is still a misconception my brain refuses to give up.
And I still see people blaming Reagan for airline delays. Oh wait, I mean that people blame today's airline delays on one action Reagan did over 30 years ago.
Your comparison for FDR would be someone claiming the Great Recession never ended because he forced a bank holiday, and the economy has been in the crapper for 80 years for that one act.
I haven't seen those arguments. Please let me know if you have.
40.1% cannot push anything through the Senate. 40.1% cannot push anything through the House. 40.1% cannot do much of anything.
As for your statement that Democracy is designed to work that 50%+1 gets to kill the 50%-1, I would have to say that the Senate has the filibuster rule for that exact reason.
And I'm sure you are another that wasn't complaining about the filibuster when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Which is why my sig is so relevant so often.
No, they did not have the power to obstruct when the Democrats had their super-majority. Other than being completely wrong on your main argument, you are correct that the Senate has rules.
First, I didn't say saving accounts, I said a savings plan. Those plans would be designed to grow money much faster than a bank savings account would.
As far as inflation, it is based on how much money people have available and are willing to spend on items. As I said, people are borrowing money to buy items. So inflation is higher than if those people put their money into a savings plan, didn't borrow continually, and lived more frugally. But since they they are willing to spend so much for items, prices can rise more and the people will still buy. That is the driver of why the lower and middle classes can't keep up with inflation.
So the models very much in line with the UN one at 4 degrees, it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably. But hey, if you deny it, it won't happen right?
There is a slight error there. Warming temperatures don't so much "expand" deserts, as they "move" them around. During previous warm periods, dry areas moved to the north or south as wind patterns changed, and rain fell in different areas than before. So as the north edge of a desert moved further north, so did the southern edge. Grasslands that bordered it to the south expanded their northern edge, as they received more rain in that area.
And since it is often pointed out that warm air holds more moisture than colder air, more rainfall along those receding desert edges is more likely then simply from changing wind patterns alone.
Are you claiming that temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, lake sediment, etc.) from around the world do not show the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age as global conditions?
Maybe the Democrats should have told Kennedy to retire the previous election cycle, and name his successor. It's not like that person wouldn't have won easily. So, the blame for the Democrats not being able to capitalize on their super-majority status is entirely on them, as a party and as individuals.
As for the Democrats not using the filibuster in 2001, it was because other than reactions to the September 11 attacks, (which includes the Patriot Act, Dept of Homeland Security, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.) the Republicans didn't push their extreme agenda at all. Because of both the Bush v Gore decision and the fact that the Senate was split 50/50, the Republican leadership acted like they had to kowtow to the Democrats, which the Democrats and liberals across the country insisted was correct.
And then in June 2001, Senator Jeffords left the Republican party to become an Independent, and the Democrats took over the Senate again, with their 50 seats. In 2003, the Republicans were back up with 51 seats, and again acted like they weren't entitled to the leadership. So the Democrats didn't see legislation that they felt was so far right-wing that they had to forcibly block it.
Compare that situation to the way Obamacare was shoved through, with almost no substantial input from Republicans, and then replacing the House version in its entirety for the Senate version, and it's almost unbelievable that you think there is a comparison in the recent use of the filibuster between the two parties.
As for why I like the filibuster, other than what I said was my reason, you are so far off concerning my privilege and power, it's comical.
Kennedy's sickness is immaterial to the question. The Democrats had 58 seats, and both of the Independent Senators were former Democrats who voted with them on social issues. They had 60 seats. The had the super-majority.
You even recognize they had at least 72 days of it. They could have passed anything they wanted for over 2 months. Yet they had to keep bribing their own party members, Nelson and Landrieu in particular, to get those last votes.
My main contention is just that liberals want to 'blame' the Republicans for the Democrats not using their super-majority efficiently. As if it's their fault.
Governor Reagan did not end free education in California's universities. That was done after he was president, in 1982. He did allow increased student fees, and tried to end the tuition-free policy, but in no way "ended free education" since tuition was not instituted until 8 years after he left office.
It's no coincidence that 80% of the wealth created over the past two decades have gone to the top 1% of the population.
Is that because the lower 95% would rather spend all their money on the products the 1% sell, rather than put it into a savings plan that would ensure their children would end up being in the top 3%?
Actually, saying they spend all their money isn't even accurate. They actually borrow money from the 1% in order to buy the products that the 1% sell.
Slashdot Mirror
You're short, your bellybutton sticks out too far, and you're a terrible burden on your poor mother.
Go!
Correction on my above post. The last paragraph was supposed to start:
I answered in another post why the Republicans are using the filibuster ....
I looked at your link that shows businesses get to deduct business expenses from their income, and determine their taxable income from that reduced amount.
You definition of "giving" must be different than mine.
This is why I love debating you guys. Whenever your opponents ask a direct question that will derail your arguments, the response is to change the entire conversation to avoid it.
Your comment is just gibberish to avoid my question about whether temperature proxies show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to be regional or global.
But, I'll wait for interkin3tic to respond, since he was the one who implied they were local.
Like Blackraven said, 40.1% can prevent legislation from being enacted.
Yes, and Blackraven is essentially correct. However that is not what you stated. You stated that 40.1% can "run roughshod over the 59.9%." That is categorically false. Insisting legislation is debated and amended until you feel it has met your concerns is not running roughshod. It is called being a politician. But beyond that, you are arguing that the Senate is not being run according to its design, while the filibuster is exactly what the founding fathers wanted for that chamber, for these exact reasons.
If you're too lazy and or stupid to understand that,
That's funny, the ignorant calling their opposition stupid. As I just said, the Senate is designed to do what you are claiming is destroying it.
then I'm clearly wasting my time. BTW, AFAIK the GOP is using the filibuster far more frequently than the Democrats were back during the Bush administration. The Democrats were at least trying to work with Bush, who refused to work with them in most cases, whereas the GOP isn't even pretending like they're trying to work with the Democrats now.
I answered in why the Republicans are using the filibuster when the Democrats didn't. It's because when the Republicans were in charge , they acted like a pack of cowardly dogs, afraid of their own shadows. They'll howl to let you know they are there, but when the time comes to act, they cave to the false "public sentiment" that the media concocts to support the Democrats. Time and again. And it still is happening with Speaker Boehner in the House. That's a big reason I don't vote for Republicans.
When I click on it, a yellow 'shield' with a crossing guard figure appears, with this message:
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect
securely to www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely,
sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.
What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to
this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is
trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.
The problem with hoping that new areas will be available to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is that it assumes that the location where you put the chair will be as hospitable as the last. For organisms that have extremely specific biological requirements and that evolved essentially within narrow habitats over the course of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, the probability of that happening rapidly approaches zero ....
You do realize the species we have today survived the last Ice Age when glaciers covered half of the northern continents. Right? There is no niche that's been constant for millions of years, or even tens of thousands.
That's my point in regards to Reagan, and blaming past presidents. Some are blamed for long term changes made by legislation they pushed through Congress. Some people still blame Reagan for late flights because he fired the air traffic controllers in 1981.
He's blamed for other things as well, but that is the one that I find ridiculous.
Well, I can't really blame them. When I was a teenager (in the 1980s), I thought the Equator must go through the Sahara Desert, that's why it is so hot there.
Even after Geography class and traveling, it is still a misconception my brain refuses to give up.
My Firefox doesn't like your IPCC link. Do you have another that has a trusted certificate?
$4 billion that is *given* to big carbon each year in tax breaks.
Itemize them for me.
And progressives don't believe in a centrally managed economy. We believe in a country that's run to the benefit of the people
How does your head not explode from the contradictions within it?
And I still see people blaming Reagan for airline delays. Oh wait, I mean that people blame today's airline delays on one action Reagan did over 30 years ago.
Your comparison for FDR would be someone claiming the Great Recession never ended because he forced a bank holiday, and the economy has been in the crapper for 80 years for that one act.
I haven't seen those arguments. Please let me know if you have.
Do you mean the Wall Street bailout that was written by a Democrat controlled House and Senate?
I blame Bush for signing it, but he can't be blamed for it passing Congress with a strong majority.
Excuse me while I call you an idiot.
You're an idiot.
40.1% cannot push anything through the Senate. 40.1% cannot push anything through the House. 40.1% cannot do much of anything.
As for your statement that Democracy is designed to work that 50%+1 gets to kill the 50%-1, I would have to say that the Senate has the filibuster rule for that exact reason.
And I'm sure you are another that wasn't complaining about the filibuster when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Which is why my sig is so relevant so often.
No, they did not have the power to obstruct when the Democrats had their super-majority. Other than being completely wrong on your main argument, you are correct that the Senate has rules.
First, I didn't say saving accounts, I said a savings plan. Those plans would be designed to grow money much faster than a bank savings account would.
As far as inflation, it is based on how much money people have available and are willing to spend on items. As I said, people are borrowing money to buy items. So inflation is higher than if those people put their money into a savings plan, didn't borrow continually, and lived more frugally. But since they they are willing to spend so much for items, prices can rise more and the people will still buy. That is the driver of why the lower and middle classes can't keep up with inflation.
And your point is???
Does your image show desert at the equator?
I know it doesn't without even looking at it.
So the models very much in line with the UN one at 4 degrees, it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably. But hey, if you deny it, it won't happen right?
There is a slight error there. Warming temperatures don't so much "expand" deserts, as they "move" them around. During previous warm periods, dry areas moved to the north or south as wind patterns changed, and rain fell in different areas than before. So as the north edge of a desert moved further north, so did the southern edge. Grasslands that bordered it to the south expanded their northern edge, as they received more rain in that area.
And since it is often pointed out that warm air holds more moisture than colder air, more rainfall along those receding desert edges is more likely then simply from changing wind patterns alone.
Are you claiming that temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, lake sediment, etc.) from around the world do not show the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age as global conditions?
Maybe the Democrats should have told Kennedy to retire the previous election cycle, and name his successor. It's not like that person wouldn't have won easily. So, the blame for the Democrats not being able to capitalize on their super-majority status is entirely on them, as a party and as individuals.
As for the Democrats not using the filibuster in 2001, it was because other than reactions to the September 11 attacks, (which includes the Patriot Act, Dept of Homeland Security, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.) the Republicans didn't push their extreme agenda at all. Because of both the Bush v Gore decision and the fact that the Senate was split 50/50, the Republican leadership acted like they had to kowtow to the Democrats, which the Democrats and liberals across the country insisted was correct.
And then in June 2001, Senator Jeffords left the Republican party to become an Independent, and the Democrats took over the Senate again, with their 50 seats. In 2003, the Republicans were back up with 51 seats, and again acted like they weren't entitled to the leadership. So the Democrats didn't see legislation that they felt was so far right-wing that they had to forcibly block it.
Compare that situation to the way Obamacare was shoved through, with almost no substantial input from Republicans, and then replacing the House version in its entirety for the Senate version, and it's almost unbelievable that you think there is a comparison in the recent use of the filibuster between the two parties.
As for why I like the filibuster, other than what I said was my reason, you are so far off concerning my privilege and power, it's comical.
Kennedy's sickness is immaterial to the question. The Democrats had 58 seats, and both of the Independent Senators were former Democrats who voted with them on social issues. They had 60 seats. The had the super-majority.
You even recognize they had at least 72 days of it. They could have passed anything they wanted for over 2 months. Yet they had to keep bribing their own party members, Nelson and Landrieu in particular, to get those last votes.
My main contention is just that liberals want to 'blame' the Republicans for the Democrats not using their super-majority efficiently. As if it's their fault.
Anyhow, thank you for the specific dates.
Governor Reagan did not end free education in California's universities. That was done after he was president, in 1982. He did allow increased student fees, and tried to end the tuition-free policy, but in no way "ended free education" since tuition was not instituted until 8 years after he left office.
It's no coincidence that 80% of the wealth created over the past two decades have gone to the top 1% of the population.
Is that because the lower 95% would rather spend all their money on the products the 1% sell, rather than put it into a savings plan that would ensure their children would end up being in the top 3%?
Actually, saying they spend all their money isn't even accurate. They actually borrow money from the 1% in order to buy the products that the 1% sell.