All I'm saying is the evidence the defense provided does not prove him NOT Guilty.
You are never 'proven' of being not guilty in a court of law. You are ASSUMED not guilty unless proven otherwise (guilty). No one ever has to prove they are not guilty. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt.
How can they be admissible for one thing (presence), but not another (time stamp)? How is it that you think you can pick and choose which parts of the picture are true and which aren't?
Not unheard of. Here in California, I actually have a injection molding press at my factory that has its control screens set for English, but it still spits out some German words from time to time.
Great job simply omitting the 13 straight months of private sector job growth we have had since Obama finally managed to turn the economy around.
Great job simply omitting the 90 or so months of sub 6.5% unemployment we had under the Republicans when talking about 'how bad things were' under them.
If your not going to get basic facts about our current economic situation right I'm not going to bother refuting your revisionist history
How is my history 'revisionist'? I've stated the facts of how the economy has been under different presidents/congresses. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it 'revisionist'.
(which seems to view the President as not particularly important).
Ahhhh... now you are starting to catch on. My point this whole time is the the economy doesn't particularly care about who is president or running congress.
All I'm going to say is that if you vote Republican, you are voting for deregulation.
Voting democrat got you the same thing.
After poor regulation (over many laws and executive orders) killed the economy.
Still waiting for you to list some law that republicans only passed that caused this mess.
Please don't vote Republican.
Why would I do something as stupid as voting Republican? That would be as stupid as voting Democratic.
A culture that the democrats happily voted for in 1999.
A decade of Democratic rule - economic success
What decade are you talking about? the 90's? Because I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans controlled both houses since 1995. Also, that whole uptick in the economy turned out to be as fake as the housing market. Dot-com bubble, you might have heard of it?
A decade of Republican rule - economic disaster
And what decade are you talking about? The 2000s? Because as I've shown, the economy was great for most of the 2000s, up until the democrats took control of both houses in 2006. You can ignore this fact if you want, but I'm not sure why you think that I will.
A few more years of Democrats - economic recovery
The unemployment rate climbed since the democrats took control in 2006, and has grown even higher since Obama took office. What the hell is your definition of 'recovery'?
If you still can't see that neither party knows what the hell they are doing, I'm afraid that I can't help you.
Irresponsible deregulation of the financial industry.
If you are specifically referring to the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was signed into law by Clinton (democrat, in case you were wondering), and won the votes of nearly 200 house and senate democrats:
Sucks to find out that they are just as responsible, doesn't it?
Except that Democrats couldn't have possibly caused as much damage in 2 years
And yet the original poster and his graph that I was replying to said that Obama had somehow 'saved' us within months, hell, weeks of getting into office. So, Dems can't break things in 1-2 years, but they can fix things within 1-2 months?
...so you better say it on Fox "News" if you want to get away with such blatant BS.
yawn.... I'm sorry, how is this pointless jab at Fox related to anything we've been talking about? Oh, how clever. You're trying to imply that I'm somehow pro-republican and will say anything to make them look good. I'll save you the effort. Republicans suck just as badly as the Democrats at running things. I don't vote for the (R) or the (D), since neither one has shown any ability to lead, even when their party has complete control of both houses and the white house.
I know it looks like I'm just trying to bash Democrats, but I'm just trying to show how silly it is to say that one side or the other can 'break' or 'fix' our economy, since they both tend to just muck things up equally.
those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Americans are terrible at learning from history so we managed to vote back in the same idiots who tanked our economy in the first place.
..and you haven't learned that both sides are capable of screwing things up (both sides voted for the deregulation that you loath).
...a decade of Republican policies pushed the economy off a cliff.
Care to name any of these policies? Seems that the economy was humming along pretty nicely until the Democrats took back control of both houses in 2007... right before the economy went to crap. I could easily say that a year of Democrat policies pushed the economy off a cliff.
... the massive job losses were gradually stopped and replaced with job gains.
The job losses were already stopping the first month that Obama was in office. You really think his actions changed things that fast?
Your scary budget deficit graph should talk to the Republican tax cut graph. I'll bet they have alot in common.
It has more in common with the Democrat spending increases. Oh, and the Dems seemed to be just fine with the tax cuts, since they extended them.
Only a total retard wouldn't notice the massive recession that Republican policies directly caused.
Fine. Could you let me know what policies these were?
Another thing to consider. You say that the Republicans caused this mess. I assume you say this because Bush was president at the time that unemployment shot up. Well, unemployment was incredibly low during Bush's first 6-7 years. Things then went to crap around 2008.
Guess who had just taken control of congress just a year earlier? Correct, Democrats were now 'in charge'. And the unemployment rate took off like a race car while they controlled things.
Trying to pin down what party did what to something as complicated as our economy is a silly, futile exercise. Blame whoever you want, but just know that voting in 'the other side' won't magically fix things.
No, he wasted time passing health care reform, which nobody cared about or thought was a priority. While he was dicking around with what he thought was important, the unemployment rate continued to climb.
Yes, that's right, things have been worse since he came into office. Under Bush, the unemployment rate never broke above 8% (it was around 5-6% through nearly his entire eight years in office). Under Obama, it has been at least 8% (with it staying between 9-10% most of his first year).
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_864063_1302240019685.gif
See? I have a graph also, and it shows that not only has Obama not 'cleaned up the mess', but he has made it far worse. I won't even bother to show you the scary graph of budget deficits for the next decade. It's too gruesome to look at.
Now, in reality, I don't put much blame on a president for how well or poorly the economy does. But I just wanted to point out how easily data and stats can be used to show whatever a person wants to.
There was no surplus while Clinton was president. He was still borrowing from the social security trust fund to make ends meet. Just because he was not borrowing from outside sources does not mean he was balancing the budget. That money will still need to be paid back from the general fund at a future date.
If I hold a red rubber ball in front of me, and release it, I will see that it falls, then bounces up again, then falls, bounces, etc. until coming to rest.
According to your asinine post, I can not be sure that a blue rubber ball would behave the same way, because, hey I have not personally done it yet with a blue colored ball, only red.
I can most assuredly use previous experience and knowledge to extrapolate certain things. Science is based on observation. Religion is based on the absence of observation, i.e. 'faith'. If god came down and talked to us and showed us amazing things to prove he was god, it would not take any faith to believe in him, now would it? If guardian angels were flying around in plain view saving our asses on a daily basis, I would not 'believe' in them, I would know that they exist from direct observation.
All of your examples COULD be reproduced, in theory. It's the practicality of it that gets in the way. Building a star isn't actually that complicated (collect enough material to get a mass that can support fusion). We just don't have the technology (or need) to do it. Evolution? Sure, if you want to try to recreate the exact conditions that the field mouse lived in, and wait around for a few million years, go right ahead.
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable.
So, you've never noticed all of this advanced technology all around us? It's all based on science, and it works. Ford didn't build up a car and pray that it worked. Intel didn't throw a bunch of silicon together and say, "I hope God will make this thing run Windows 95."
Advanced science that we don't use or see in our day to day life can seem like 'faith', but that's only because it hasn't yet trickled down into our lives. When relativity first popped up, most people couldn't comprehend it. Today, it gets taught to college freshmen with little problem.
Let me know when praying for people to get better works. If I'm having a heart attack one day, and the person with me starts praying for my heart to get better, I will slap them and yell, "Get me to a hospital, you moron!"
Well, if Gingrich lied under oath about getting a BJ, he should be prosecuted. But he didn't, so no, he wasn't "doing the same damn thing". But nice try.
Well, I can choose not to shop at Walmart, or buy a cell phone from AT&T, or deposit my money at Bank of America. However, you are forced into unions if you want to work at certain jobs/industries. Want to be a teacher? Hope you like unions. Hell, I did an internship for a summer at an car manufacturing plant, and they forced me to join their stupid union.
Oh, and I CAN ALSO use the CAPS KEY in a COMPLETELY POINTLESS way!
Do you really vote based on "chance in hell of winning"? That has to be the most irrelevant and stupid metric for deciding if someone should lead that I have ever heard. And if the majority of voters are that stupid to use that as their criteria, then we get the government we deserve.
I guess you forgot the whole 7 years of Whitewater investigations,...
Why do you assume I 'forgot' about the entire whitewater investigation? What does that have to do with anything? Bill said "I did not have sex with that woman" on January 26th, 1998. Hillary said "Vast right-wing conspiracy" in an interview the very next day. You really think she was still stuck on the whole whitewater thing? No, she was saying that it was a conspiracy against Bill, and the he didn't really get a hummer from Monica. No, not her sweet, innocent Bill!
This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.
-Hillary Clinton, 1998, talking about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Uh, no, Hillary, your husband simply wanted to bang women that weren't you.
Slashdot Mirror
He used junk science, and he got away with it.
Um, change in distance divided by elapsed time to get average speed is pretty basic science. What is the 'junk' part?
All I'm saying is the evidence the defense provided does not prove him NOT Guilty.
You are never 'proven' of being not guilty in a court of law. You are ASSUMED not guilty unless proven otherwise (guilty). No one ever has to prove they are not guilty. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt.
How can they be admissible for one thing (presence), but not another (time stamp)? How is it that you think you can pick and choose which parts of the picture are true and which aren't?
Then the company could have easily said that. But they didn't, even though they sent a guy down to the court to defend their device.
...the photo time stamps measure the interval betweens processing and storing of the photos...
So, you're saying that it takes different amounts of time to process the two pictures on the exact same device?
Not unheard of. Here in California, I actually have a injection molding press at my factory that has its control screens set for English, but it still spits out some German words from time to time.
Great job simply omitting the 13 straight months of private sector job growth we have had since Obama finally managed to turn the economy around.
Great job simply omitting the 90 or so months of sub 6.5% unemployment we had under the Republicans when talking about 'how bad things were' under them.
If your not going to get basic facts about our current economic situation right I'm not going to bother refuting your revisionist history
How is my history 'revisionist'? I've stated the facts of how the economy has been under different presidents/congresses. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it 'revisionist'.
(which seems to view the President as not particularly important).
Ahhhh... now you are starting to catch on. My point this whole time is the the economy doesn't particularly care about who is president or running congress.
All I'm going to say is that if you vote Republican, you are voting for deregulation.
Voting democrat got you the same thing.
After poor regulation (over many laws and executive orders) killed the economy.
Still waiting for you to list some law that republicans only passed that caused this mess.
Please don't vote Republican.
Why would I do something as stupid as voting Republican? That would be as stupid as voting Democratic.
A culture of deregulation did.
A culture that the democrats happily voted for in 1999.
A decade of Democratic rule - economic success
What decade are you talking about? the 90's? Because I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans controlled both houses since 1995. Also, that whole uptick in the economy turned out to be as fake as the housing market. Dot-com bubble, you might have heard of it?
A decade of Republican rule - economic disaster
And what decade are you talking about? The 2000s? Because as I've shown, the economy was great for most of the 2000s, up until the democrats took control of both houses in 2006. You can ignore this fact if you want, but I'm not sure why you think that I will.
A few more years of Democrats - economic recovery
The unemployment rate climbed since the democrats took control in 2006, and has grown even higher since Obama took office. What the hell is your definition of 'recovery'?
If you still can't see that neither party knows what the hell they are doing, I'm afraid that I can't help you.
Sigh...
Irresponsible deregulation of the financial industry.
If you are specifically referring to the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was signed into law by Clinton (democrat, in case you were wondering), and won the votes of nearly 200 house and senate democrats:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/22/maddow-blames-financial-crisis-republican-deregulation-ignores-overwh
Sucks to find out that they are just as responsible, doesn't it?
Except that Democrats couldn't have possibly caused as much damage in 2 years
And yet the original poster and his graph that I was replying to said that Obama had somehow 'saved' us within months, hell, weeks of getting into office. So, Dems can't break things in 1-2 years, but they can fix things within 1-2 months?
...so you better say it on Fox "News" if you want to get away with such blatant BS.
yawn.... I'm sorry, how is this pointless jab at Fox related to anything we've been talking about? Oh, how clever. You're trying to imply that I'm somehow pro-republican and will say anything to make them look good. I'll save you the effort. Republicans suck just as badly as the Democrats at running things. I don't vote for the (R) or the (D), since neither one has shown any ability to lead, even when their party has complete control of both houses and the white house.
I know it looks like I'm just trying to bash Democrats, but I'm just trying to show how silly it is to say that one side or the other can 'break' or 'fix' our economy, since they both tend to just muck things up equally.
those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Americans are terrible at learning from history so we managed to vote back in the same idiots who tanked our economy in the first place.
..and you haven't learned that both sides are capable of screwing things up (both sides voted for the deregulation that you loath).
...a decade of Republican policies pushed the economy off a cliff.
Care to name any of these policies? Seems that the economy was humming along pretty nicely until the Democrats took back control of both houses in 2007... right before the economy went to crap. I could easily say that a year of Democrat policies pushed the economy off a cliff.
... the massive job losses were gradually stopped and replaced with job gains.
The job losses were already stopping the first month that Obama was in office. You really think his actions changed things that fast?
Your scary budget deficit graph should talk to the Republican tax cut graph. I'll bet they have alot in common.
It has more in common with the Democrat spending increases. Oh, and the Dems seemed to be just fine with the tax cuts, since they extended them.
Only a total retard wouldn't notice the massive recession that Republican policies directly caused.
Fine. Could you let me know what policies these were?
Another thing to consider. You say that the Republicans caused this mess. I assume you say this because Bush was president at the time that unemployment shot up. Well, unemployment was incredibly low during Bush's first 6-7 years. Things then went to crap around 2008.
Guess who had just taken control of congress just a year earlier? Correct, Democrats were now 'in charge'. And the unemployment rate took off like a race car while they controlled things.
Trying to pin down what party did what to something as complicated as our economy is a silly, futile exercise. Blame whoever you want, but just know that voting in 'the other side' won't magically fix things.
Oh, yeah, look at this chart: http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_864063_1302240019685.gif
If the link doesn't work properly, you can generate the same graph for 2000-2010 here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster
Notice that during the Bush years, unemployment stayed around 5-6%, and never broke above 8%.
Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.
Also notice that during most of Obama's time in office, unemployment has been 9-10%, and never broke below 8%.
Oh, woe is us. Which chart to believe...
And he did clean up that mess.
No, he wasted time passing health care reform, which nobody cared about or thought was a priority. While he was dicking around with what he thought was important, the unemployment rate continued to climb.
Yes, that's right, things have been worse since he came into office. Under Bush, the unemployment rate never broke above 8% (it was around 5-6% through nearly his entire eight years in office). Under Obama, it has been at least 8% (with it staying between 9-10% most of his first year). http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_864063_1302240019685.gif
(Not sure if the image link will work properly. You can generate your own 2000-2010 graph of unemployment here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)
See? I have a graph also, and it shows that not only has Obama not 'cleaned up the mess', but he has made it far worse. I won't even bother to show you the scary graph of budget deficits for the next decade. It's too gruesome to look at.
Now, in reality, I don't put much blame on a president for how well or poorly the economy does. But I just wanted to point out how easily data and stats can be used to show whatever a person wants to.
There was no surplus while Clinton was president. He was still borrowing from the social security trust fund to make ends meet. Just because he was not borrowing from outside sources does not mean he was balancing the budget. That money will still need to be paid back from the general fund at a future date.
If I hold a red rubber ball in front of me, and release it, I will see that it falls, then bounces up again, then falls, bounces, etc. until coming to rest.
According to your asinine post, I can not be sure that a blue rubber ball would behave the same way, because, hey I have not personally done it yet with a blue colored ball, only red.
I can most assuredly use previous experience and knowledge to extrapolate certain things. Science is based on observation. Religion is based on the absence of observation, i.e. 'faith'. If god came down and talked to us and showed us amazing things to prove he was god, it would not take any faith to believe in him, now would it? If guardian angels were flying around in plain view saving our asses on a daily basis, I would not 'believe' in them, I would know that they exist from direct observation.
Surplus? What's that?
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable.
So, you've never noticed all of this advanced technology all around us? It's all based on science, and it works. Ford didn't build up a car and pray that it worked. Intel didn't throw a bunch of silicon together and say, "I hope God will make this thing run Windows 95."
Advanced science that we don't use or see in our day to day life can seem like 'faith', but that's only because it hasn't yet trickled down into our lives. When relativity first popped up, most people couldn't comprehend it. Today, it gets taught to college freshmen with little problem.
Let me know when praying for people to get better works. If I'm having a heart attack one day, and the person with me starts praying for my heart to get better, I will slap them and yell, "Get me to a hospital, you moron!"
Well, if Gingrich lied under oath about getting a BJ, he should be prosecuted. But he didn't, so no, he wasn't "doing the same damn thing". But nice try.
You know, it's called "oral sex" for a reason.
Oh, and I CAN ALSO use the CAPS KEY in a COMPLETELY POINTLESS way!
Do you really vote based on "chance in hell of winning"? That has to be the most irrelevant and stupid metric for deciding if someone should lead that I have ever heard. And if the majority of voters are that stupid to use that as their criteria, then we get the government we deserve.
I guess you forgot the whole 7 years of Whitewater investigations,...
Why do you assume I 'forgot' about the entire whitewater investigation? What does that have to do with anything? Bill said "I did not have sex with that woman" on January 26th, 1998. Hillary said "Vast right-wing conspiracy" in an interview the very next day. You really think she was still stuck on the whole whitewater thing? No, she was saying that it was a conspiracy against Bill, and the he didn't really get a hummer from Monica. No, not her sweet, innocent Bill!
This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.
-Hillary Clinton, 1998, talking about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Uh, no, Hillary, your husband simply wanted to bang women that weren't you.
So, when the latest movie is broadcast on network TV, that removes the copyright? Awesome!
Some Democrats have been bought by special interests, but ALL Republicans have.
You're just so adorable. What color is your marsh-mellow crapping pony in make-believe land?