Is the measure of a mistake in deaths? No, but deaths raise the stakes.
If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001? That seems to have been a planned attack by terrorists. It's been in the news frequently but you might have missed it.
If so, who's mistake was it that 40,000 thousand people died in auto related accidents last year? The people involved in those accidents.
If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Again, that was an attack. You might have missed it in the news coverage.
Ok, so you spend 5(forgetable) minutes on abstinence and 29:55 hours(thats a 6 week term) on condoms and birth control, and expect an impact.
Of course. It isn't like the concept of abstinence is new to them. Again, they've been living it for most (all?) of their lives so far.
How about we spend 27 hours on abstinence and its benefits and the risks of unprotected sex and 3 hours on a survey of the various birth control methods and how to find them at the supermarket...
#1. They can find the condoms at the supermarket. They don't hide them.
#2. If you talk about abstinence for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself.
#3. If you cover the various diseases for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself. Unless you go into the very rare ones that the kids are even less likely to catch than to have a condom fail.
Oh and if you need to know more, read the insert, it gives instructions.
Yes, but it doesn't answer questions. If your class isn't already teaching everything in those instructions, then why are you wasting their time? They can pick all of that up talking about it in the parking lot.
Of course, they'll also pick up a lot of incorrect information, but they'll be stuck with that anyway in your program.
Simple enough, the contract today(traditional marriage) includes an implied support agreement.
A civil union contract would of necessity include a detailed support agreement listing responsibilities and priviledges.
Yes, I said that in my previous post. http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si d=12552 4&cid=10517273
Again, these issues need to be worked out and codified BEFORE implementing "civil unions" with two or more people. Until they are addressed (and saying that a contract would be necessary is NOT addressing them), then I cannot recommend changing our existing marriage laws.
It's easy to say how something "should" be, but it's a lot harder when you have to consider all the ramifications and how immature and petty people can be.
Did it cover the bits about a penis and vagina and sperm and egg?
Then if you don't put the penis and vagina together, you don't get pregnant. That's "abstinence".
Abstinence is what you've been doing all those nights until the first time you had sex. How much does it need to be explained? I haven't met anyone who didn't understand what "abstinence" meant.
Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.
Again, abstinence is the easiest concept to explain to teenagers. I can explain everything there is to know about abstinence in less than 5 minutes. That includes the 4 minute question and answer session after. That leaves the rest of the class time to cover the other subjects in the detail necessary. Yes, that includes learning how to put condoms on and when to put them on and what types of condoms will block viruses and what types won't and how to use condoms in conjunction with foams/gels, etc.
If man and woman have a civil union, and he gets drunk all the time and won't keep a job, under the current rules, she can dump him, take the kid and get her life together.
Under your rules, she's stuck with him until the kid turns 18.
The thing is, you have to look at all the aspects, including how to end the contract, and take all of them into account. This is complicated with just two people, it becomes extremely complicated when more than two people are involved.
Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority
Rather, the details need to be examined now rather than hoping that they'll all work themselves out because everyone will be nice and mature about it.
Our current marriage system has evolved over hundreds of years of people being total jerks to the people they've married. And that's only with two people married.
There would also have to be "due diligence" allowed. So each individual would have to have all of his/her financial records open to the other(s).
Right now, the system is fairly complicated because so many people just do not deal with all of the legal issues. Lots of couples do not have wills nor have they made arrangements for the care of any children should they both be killed.
Civil unions with multiple individuals would be okay, but all of the legal aspects have to be settled first and kept up-to-date.
Suppose a triad with two children broke up. Who would pay how much child support and how would that amount be determined? Would the non-biological "parent" be expected to pay?
First off, what is a "mistake" in politics (aside from invading a country... you know the rest)?
How often does someone vote "yes" for a bill when they meant "no"?
Almost everything in politics comes down to your personal beliefs. You vote your beliefs. Whether it be abortion or taxes or defense.
The real question is goals. And the methods you'll use to achieve those goals. And how effective/efficient those methods are. And the side effects of those methods.
The reality of the situation is that different people have different goals and even people with the same goals can have them in a different priority.
Instead of "mistakes", it comes down to "have you ever changed your beliefs / goals".
Same for CEOs. We punish people for apologizing or admitting fault and reward them for bulling through until the problem just goes away.
Well, in theory, the "market" is supposed to punish the CEO's who choose a strategy and/or goal that isn't effective for their company.
And I can imagine no way for this to occur, since people currently benefit greatly for mocking politicians dress, speaking ability, or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)
I think that is because the average person does not understand nor does he want to understand the complexities we face. He wants simple solutions that fix all the problems and he wants them delivered within an hour long sitcom. The bad guys have to be easily discernable as bad guys. So lots of focus is put on the visual/auditory elements.
If someone effectively and efficiently achieved his goal, but that goal was not one you shared, did he make a mistake?
If he was working effectively and efficiently towards a goal, but then something changed his belief system and he discarded that goal, was that a mistake?
About the only "mistake" is when someone chooses a path that will not lead to one of his goals.
"However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=674) plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11
I'm saving space and not dealing with your other examples. But they are all just as easily debunked.
Now, lies in the "Swift Boat" campaign. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia n/david_sar asohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1093434977273600.x ml
"After the ad ran, Elliott told The Boston Globe he'd made "a terrible mistake" in signing the statement accusing Kerry when "I knew it was wrong." The anti-Kerry group later said Elliott was repudiating his repudiation, but he is no longer available to reporter."
For many of them, Vietnam was the defining moment of their lives.
But all the evidence that comes out shows how worthless their sacrifice was and how they were used by a government that lied to them.
Some can see how they were used and grow beyond it.
Some cannot and will attack anyone who says that it was a useless war. These are the ones that will be used again by the same government that lied to them last time.
D-Day : War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one. Bluto : Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter : Germans? Boon : Forget it, he's rolling. Bluto : And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] Bluto : the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns]
Recall the video tape of how bad Windows was after most of the IE functionality had been disabled? It was submitted as an actual video tape of an actual experiment.
But somethings didn't seem right on the tape. Icons were changing between screenshots. But that's okay, because Microsoft just cut out some of the boring bits, but the tape is really a tape of an actual experiment.
But then it turns out that the machines are completely wrong. Well, Microsoft said it was only a dramatization of an actual experiment.
So the judge said Microsoft could do the experiment over, but that the DoJ could watch it.
Microsoft had problems re-doing the experiment because the Microsoft engineers could not get a reliable Internet connection from the hotel room.
So, the judge finds Microsoft guilty and a monopoly, appeals, etc, new administration, case dropped.
Gotta say I agree with most of it. Particularly the Euro vs Dollar.
But that last part about Bush believing in manufacturing. I don't see that. I do see Bush making it more profitable to do the manufacturing overseas. And that annoys me.
But that's because I do believe that we need a strong manufacturing segment in our country. We take in the cheap raw materials and export the more expensive finished goods.
The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.
My oh my. I guess the President doesn't also do things like sign subsidies and tariffs and such. What about the budget?
The President asks for specific taxes and his budget spends that money in specific ways. Both of those affect the job situation.
I should remind you of what Ross said about a giant sucking sound if NAFTA was approved.
In a nation with a GDP of nearly 11 Trillion Dollars what exact impact do you thing 120 Billion would have?
You're confusing GDP with tax revenues. The are NOT the same.
Spending that $120 Billion on extending the unemployment benefits would have done far more to help this country than going after some third world tinpot dictator.
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic.
You claim that washing your car makes it rain. You post a calendar showing the days it rains and the days you washed your car. On some of the days that it rained, you had washed your car.
I point out that there were also days you washed your car that it did not rain so the "evidence" that you provided does not support your statement. This was the original exchange.
All subsequent exchanges have been you claiming additional criteria to account for the days without rain.
So, washing your car causes it to rain, and you have evidence supporting this, except when it doesn't rain in which case it would have rained except specific circumstances A and/or B and/or C and/or D... and/or Z caused it not to rain.
Coincidence is not causality.
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
No I do not. I am showing that your claim is very simplistic, but only for those cases where the results match your beliefs.
For those cases where the results do not match your beliefs, you feel free to pile on additional factors until you can justify to yourself that you're still correct.
You're problem is that you have an extremely limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory. The most notable of that is your failing to understand that it is a model and, as such, is abstracted to a degree of simplicity for people like you that makes is useless for discussing real world situations.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in.
The Ronnie trend was a one year drop, then consistent gains over the following years.
The Bush example was a one year increase, then consistent drops over the following years.
They are the opposite of each other and not the same as each other.
I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Emphasis added. If the same pattern is present in both cases, why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
Ronnie had increases the second year, Bush is still showing a loss three years later. The same pattern, that has different results indicates that the pattern is not a factor.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
I posted the data right there.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Incorrect. All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize. Again, back to the car/rain analogy. When the result is what you predict, you believe your simplistic model accurately predicted it.
But when the results are NOT what you claim, you pile on rationalizations for why it did not happen.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes!
And now you've gone completely off about "need". This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue. Car/rain. Coincidence is not causality.
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
Really? I do that? Well I would expect an example from you then.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
No you have not. And if you refuse to post your evidence, this is the last reply from me. I will not sink to your level of did did-not did-too did-too-not. Grow up.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim.
Maybe you're new to this "scientific method" thing. You make a statement (tax cuts increase revenues) and provide supporting evidence (Ronnie's tax cuts).
I then looked at that evidence and found a second case (Bush's tax cuts) of your claims that contradicted your position (the revenue went down).
Therefore, either your position is incorrect or the supporting evidence you provided is incorrect.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=1 04 56496 It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present.
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Translation: astrology. Since the data does NOT show what you claim it shows, you try to explain it away by claiming that other factors offset it by more. The same pattern that is present in astrology.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Again, let me explain this "science" thing to you.
You make a statement that is contradictable. You provide supporting evidence.
If your evidence does not support your statement, then your statement (or the evidence) is in error.
By your "logic", Bigfoot and astrology would be facts because no one can provide any evidence that they are not correct.
The same as your "facts" about the WTC attack counteracting Bush's tax cuts.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...
The data itself provides that. Look at the ORIGINAL data you provided. Look on that for the years that Bush has been in office. See the DECLINE? Do you know what "DECLINE" means?
You said that cutting taxes raised revenues and you presented data to support that, but the data shows that you are wrong, so you provide interpretations of what may have been in an attempt to compensate for the failings of your original data.
Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
Hey, I posted it. You are the one that with the reality problem.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None. It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Just like phrenology.
Just like astrology.
And you seem unable to get past that point. There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now.
Rather, for every dollar Bush cut taxes, only 9 cents have worked their way into circulation.
Just extending the unemployment benefits and keeping taxes as they were would have put over 70 cents of each dollar back into circulation.
The fact is that Bush's policies have trashed this economy and blind fools like you are attempting to claim otherwise by latching onto any fantasy that will allow you to blame someone else.
Nope to the best of my knowledge they are correct but they are only pieces of the puzzle if you want to look at the pieces individually then you must look at the factors that effect those pieces. You refuse to acknowledge anything other than the piece. And then spout off about what that piece must mean, yet you fail to provide anything that backs up your claim other than the piece you started with.
No, that was the evidence YOU originally sited and what YOU originally claimed it showed.
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Either it is accurate - and you are wrong about Bush. -or- it is not accurate - and it doesn't support your claims about Ronnie.
Maybe you didn't know this but when you say that data has a certain meaning and then come around and use the same data as proof of your theorem, there's a name for it. Its called circular reasoning and its not good science!
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?:)
I only pointed out that your data covered TWO instances where taxes were cut... but that those TWO instances had the OPPOSITE results.
I think you're just trying to throw words and phrases around in an attempt to get anything to stick. Whereas I am focused and detailed. But you can't see that because you're caught up in your pseudo-science.
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies.
The federal government's income is not the economy, but it is based off of the economy.
Bad economy == low income.
Was that too hard for you?
I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
No, you presented some data to "support" your claim that cutting taxes raised revenues. The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
So now you say that it is because of the WTC attack.... and the dot com bust.... and whatever else you can claim in an attempt to support your unsupportable position. Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect?
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db07co.xls
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
Pure fantasy. All you have are your fantasies about what would have happened. Otherwise known as a "false assumption".
The fact is that federal revenue is DOWN even with all of Bush's tax cuts.
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
Whereas Clinton showed growth.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue... while someone doing exactly what you claim decreases revenue.
But you aren't wrong. Those figures you presented must be wrong. Clinton couldn't have had growth and other things lead to Bush's tax problems. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket. You're never ever wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the measure of a mistake in deaths?
No, but deaths raise the stakes.
If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001?
That seems to have been a planned attack by terrorists. It's been in the news frequently but you might have missed it.
If so, who's mistake was it that 40,000 thousand people died in auto related accidents last year?
The people involved in those accidents.
If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?
Again, that was an attack. You might have missed it in the news coverage.
You have massive troop defections in Iraq, and the country falls apart even more.
And just where are they going to defect to?
Admitting a mistake at this point would also entail changing the goals and the methodology.
That's my point. He cant just come out and say obvious/relevant things on this type of question.
So our troops should die for a lie?
If there is one group of people the President needs to be honest with, it is the people who will die following his orders.
The troops already know what the reports say. They know there aren't any "WMD's". They know there weren't any.
Yet they still do their job. Even if it costs them their lives.
Our troops have more honour and courage than Bush ever will.
Ok, so you spend 5(forgetable) minutes on abstinence and 29:55 hours(thats a 6 week term) on condoms and birth control, and expect an impact.
Of course. It isn't like the concept of abstinence is new to them. Again, they've been living it for most (all?) of their lives so far.
How about we spend 27 hours on abstinence and its benefits and the risks of unprotected sex and 3 hours on a survey of the various birth control methods and how to find them at the supermarket...
#1. They can find the condoms at the supermarket. They don't hide them.
#2. If you talk about abstinence for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself.
#3. If you cover the various diseases for 27 hours, you'll be doing a LOT of repeating yourself. Unless you go into the very rare ones that the kids are even less likely to catch than to have a condom fail.
Oh and if you need to know more, read the insert, it gives instructions.
Yes, but it doesn't answer questions. If your class isn't already teaching everything in those instructions, then why are you wasting their time? They can pick all of that up talking about it in the parking lot.
Of course, they'll also pick up a lot of incorrect information, but they'll be stuck with that anyway in your program.
Simple enough, the contract today(traditional marriage) includes an implied support agreement.
i d=12552 4&cid=10517273
A civil union contract would of necessity include a detailed support agreement listing responsibilities and priviledges.
Yes, I said that in my previous post.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s
Again, these issues need to be worked out and codified BEFORE implementing "civil unions" with two or more people. Until they are addressed (and saying that a contract would be necessary is NOT addressing them), then I cannot recommend changing our existing marriage laws.
It's easy to say how something "should" be, but it's a lot harder when you have to consider all the ramifications and how immature and petty people can be.
Did it cover the bits about a penis and vagina and sperm and egg?
Then if you don't put the penis and vagina together, you don't get pregnant. That's "abstinence".
Abstinence is what you've been doing all those nights until the first time you had sex. How much does it need to be explained? I haven't met anyone who didn't understand what "abstinence" meant.
Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.
Again, abstinence is the easiest concept to explain to teenagers. I can explain everything there is to know about abstinence in less than 5 minutes. That includes the 4 minute question and answer session after. That leaves the rest of the class time to cover the other subjects in the detail necessary. Yes, that includes learning how to put condoms on and when to put them on and what types of condoms will block viruses and what types won't and how to use condoms in conjunction with foams/gels, etc.
If man and woman have a civil union, and he gets drunk all the time and won't keep a job, under the current rules, she can dump him, take the kid and get her life together.
Under your rules, she's stuck with him until the kid turns 18.
The thing is, you have to look at all the aspects, including how to end the contract, and take all of them into account. This is complicated with just two people, it becomes extremely complicated when more than two people are involved.
Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority
Rather, the details need to be examined now rather than hoping that they'll all work themselves out because everyone will be nice and mature about it.
Our current marriage system has evolved over hundreds of years of people being total jerks to the people they've married. And that's only with two people married.
Except protectin doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease it "reduces the risk of pregnancy or disease".
The same as driving sober reduces the risk of getting in an accident. But there is still a risk. And lots of people die every year in car accidents.
So sure, include contraception and barrier information, but use real numbers not blue sky laboratory numbers.
So you've moved from "abstinence" education to generic sex education.
Give them all the facts and make sure they understand all the risks.
Again, that's generic sex education.
The "abstinence" programs do not teach about condoms or foams/gels or diaphrams or anything other than abstinence.
There would also have to be "due diligence" allowed. So each individual would have to have all of his/her financial records open to the other(s).
Right now, the system is fairly complicated because so many people just do not deal with all of the legal issues. Lots of couples do not have wills nor have they made arrangements for the care of any children should they both be killed.
Civil unions with multiple individuals would be okay, but all of the legal aspects have to be settled first and kept up-to-date.
Suppose a triad with two children broke up. Who would pay how much child support and how would that amount be determined? Would the non-biological "parent" be expected to pay?
There are no such things as "safe drunk driving procedures".
If you drink, you don't drive.
If you are the designated driver, you don't drink.
NO!!! we tell them DON"T DRIVE DRUNK IT"S STUPID AND DANGEROUS AND SOMEONE WILL EITHER GET HURT OR DEAD.
Isn't that like telling kids "If you're going to have sex, then use protection. Otherwise you can end up pregnant or infected." ? Hmmmmm?
First off, what is a "mistake" in politics (aside from invading a country ... you know the rest)?
How often does someone vote "yes" for a bill when they meant "no"?
Almost everything in politics comes down to your personal beliefs. You vote your beliefs. Whether it be abortion or taxes or defense.
The real question is goals. And the methods you'll use to achieve those goals. And how effective/efficient those methods are. And the side effects of those methods.
The reality of the situation is that different people have different goals and even people with the same goals can have them in a different priority.
Instead of "mistakes", it comes down to "have you ever changed your beliefs / goals".
Same for CEOs. We punish people for apologizing or admitting fault and reward them for bulling through until the problem just goes away.
Well, in theory, the "market" is supposed to punish the CEO's who choose a strategy and/or goal that isn't effective for their company.
And I can imagine no way for this to occur, since people currently benefit greatly for mocking politicians dress, speaking ability, or face shape. (I mean, come on, what is a guy supposed to do about that?)
I think that is because the average person does not understand nor does he want to understand the complexities we face. He wants simple solutions that fix all the problems and he wants them delivered within an hour long sitcom. The bad guys have to be easily discernable as bad guys. So lots of focus is put on the visual/auditory elements.
If someone effectively and efficiently achieved his goal, but that goal was not one you shared, did he make a mistake?
If he was working effectively and efficiently towards a goal, but then something changed his belief system and he discarded that goal, was that a mistake?
About the only "mistake" is when someone chooses a path that will not lead to one of his goals.
1. No pipleine in afghanistan
a n/david_sar asohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1093434977273600.x ml
"However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=674) plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11
I'm saving space and not dealing with your other examples. But they are all just as easily debunked.
Now, lies in the "Swift Boat" campaign.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregoni
"After the ad ran, Elliott told The Boston Globe he'd made "a terrible mistake" in signing the statement accusing Kerry when "I knew it was wrong." The anti-Kerry group later said Elliott was repudiating his repudiation, but he is no longer available to reporter."
Not just lies but cowardice.
For many of them, Vietnam was the defining moment of their lives.
But all the evidence that comes out shows how worthless their sacrifice was and how they were used by a government that lied to them.
Some can see how they were used and grow beyond it.
Some cannot and will attack anyone who says that it was a useless war. These are the ones that will be used again by the same government that lied to them last time.
White: Contains facts, no lies.
Grey: Contains facts, half-truths, parts of the story, etc.
Black: Lies. May contain some facts, but definately contains lies.
f9/11 is either white or grey, depending upon whom you talk to. There are no outright lies in it.
The "Swift Boat" stuff is either grey or black, depending upon whom you talk to.
Just because two items are both propaganda does not mean that they are both the same or that they can both be dismissed.
The "Swift Boat" ads are black.
D-Day : War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto : Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter : Germans?
Boon : Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto : And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto : the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
Then add the stuff you want after.
That's what I do with Debian.
Recall the video tape of how bad Windows was after most of the IE functionality had been disabled? It was submitted as an actual video tape of an actual experiment.
But somethings didn't seem right on the tape. Icons were changing between screenshots. But that's okay, because Microsoft just cut out some of the boring bits, but the tape is really a tape of an actual experiment.
But then it turns out that the machines are completely wrong. Well, Microsoft said it was only a dramatization of an actual experiment.
So the judge said Microsoft could do the experiment over, but that the DoJ could watch it.
Microsoft had problems re-doing the experiment because the Microsoft engineers could not get a reliable Internet connection from the hotel room.
So, the judge finds Microsoft guilty and a monopoly, appeals, etc, new administration, case dropped.
I'm told that the unemployment numbers come from surveys, not unemployment checks.
But no one I know has ever been surveyed about that. I find it very interesting.
Gotta say I agree with most of it. Particularly the Euro vs Dollar.
But that last part about Bush believing in manufacturing. I don't see that. I do see Bush making it more profitable to do the manufacturing overseas. And that annoys me.
But that's because I do believe that we need a strong manufacturing segment in our country. We take in the cheap raw materials and export the more expensive finished goods.
The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.
My oh my. I guess the President doesn't also do things like sign subsidies and tariffs and such. What about the budget?
The President asks for specific taxes and his budget spends that money in specific ways. Both of those affect the job situation.
I should remind you of what Ross said about a giant sucking sound if NAFTA was approved.
In a nation with a GDP of nearly 11 Trillion Dollars what exact impact do you thing 120 Billion would have?
You're confusing GDP with tax revenues. The are NOT the same.
Spending that $120 Billion on extending the unemployment benefits would have done far more to help this country than going after some third world tinpot dictator.
A highly motivated adult manages a fast food restaurant and hires high school and college kids.
Cool. And here I thought the problem might be difficult.
We can all make enough money and get health care by managing burger joints. And selling ad space to each other.
I'm sorry, didn't that concept die back in the 90's?
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic.
... and/or Z caused it not to rain.
You claim that washing your car makes it rain. You post a calendar showing the days it rains and the days you washed your car. On some of the days that it rained, you had washed your car.
I point out that there were also days you washed your car that it did not rain so the "evidence" that you provided does not support your statement. This was the original exchange.
All subsequent exchanges have been you claiming additional criteria to account for the days without rain.
So, washing your car causes it to rain, and you have evidence supporting this, except when it doesn't rain in which case it would have rained except specific circumstances A and/or B and/or C and/or D
Coincidence is not causality.
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
No I do not. I am showing that your claim is very simplistic, but only for those cases where the results match your beliefs.
For those cases where the results do not match your beliefs, you feel free to pile on additional factors until you can justify to yourself that you're still correct.
You're problem is that you have an extremely limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory. The most notable of that is your failing to understand that it is a model and, as such, is abstracted to a degree of simplicity for people like you that makes is useless for discussing real world situations.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in.
The Ronnie trend was a one year drop, then consistent gains over the following years.
The Bush example was a one year increase, then consistent drops over the following years.
They are the opposite of each other and not the same as each other.
I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Emphasis added. If the same pattern is present in both cases, why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
Ronnie had increases the second year, Bush is still showing a loss three years later. The same pattern, that has different results indicates that the pattern is not a factor.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
I posted the data right there.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Incorrect. All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize. Again, back to the car/rain analogy. When the result is what you predict, you believe your simplistic model accurately predicted it.
But when the results are NOT what you claim, you pile on rationalizations for why it did not happen.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes!
And now you've gone completely off about "need". This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue. Car/rain. Coincidence is not causality.
Cutting taxes increases revenue (Ronnie).
Raising taxes increases revenue (Clinton).
Cutting taxe
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
1 04 56496
Really? I do that? Well I would expect an example from you then.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
No you have not. And if you refuse to post your evidence, this is the last reply from me. I will not sink to your level of did did-not did-too did-too-not. Grow up.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim.
Maybe you're new to this "scientific method" thing. You make a statement (tax cuts increase revenues) and provide supporting evidence (Ronnie's tax cuts).
I then looked at that evidence and found a second case (Bush's tax cuts) of your claims that contradicted your position (the revenue went down).
Therefore, either your position is incorrect or the supporting evidence you provided is incorrect.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=
It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present.
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Translation: astrology.
Since the data does NOT show what you claim it shows, you try to explain it away by claiming that other factors offset it by more. The same pattern that is present in astrology.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Again, let me explain this "science" thing to you.
You make a statement that is contradictable. You provide supporting evidence.
If your evidence does not support your statement, then your statement (or the evidence) is in error.
By your "logic", Bigfoot and astrology would be facts because no one can provide any evidence that they are not correct.
The same as your "facts" about the WTC attack counteracting Bush's tax cuts.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...
The data itself provides that. Look at the ORIGINAL data you provided. Look on that for the years that Bush has been in office. See the DECLINE? Do you know what "DECLINE" means?
You said that cutting taxes raised revenues and you presented data to support that, but the data shows that you are wrong, so you provide interpretations of what may have been in an attempt to compensate for the failings of your original data.
Again, pure astrology.
Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
:)
... but that those TWO instances had the OPPOSITE results.
Hey, I posted it. You are the one that with the reality problem.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None. It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Just like phrenology.
Just like astrology.
And you seem unable to get past that point. There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now.
Rather, for every dollar Bush cut taxes, only 9 cents have worked their way into circulation.
Just extending the unemployment benefits and keeping taxes as they were would have put over 70 cents of each dollar back into circulation.
The fact is that Bush's policies have trashed this economy and blind fools like you are attempting to claim otherwise by latching onto any fantasy that will allow you to blame someone else.
Nope to the best of my knowledge they are correct but they are only pieces of the puzzle if you want to look at the pieces individually then you must look at the factors that effect those pieces. You refuse to acknowledge anything other than the piece. And then spout off about what that piece must mean, yet you fail to provide anything that backs up your claim other than the piece you started with.
No, that was the evidence YOU originally sited and what YOU originally claimed it showed.
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Either it is accurate - and you are wrong about Bush.
-or-
it is not accurate - and it doesn't support your claims about Ronnie.
Maybe you didn't know this but when you say that data has a certain meaning and then come around and use the same data as proof of your theorem, there's a name for it. Its called circular reasoning and its not good science!
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?
I only pointed out that your data covered TWO instances where taxes were cut
I think you're just trying to throw words and phrases around in an attempt to get anything to stick. Whereas I am focused and detailed. But you can't see that because you're caught up in your pseudo-science.
Go back to your astrology.
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies.
... and the dot com bust. ... and whatever else you can claim in an attempt to support your unsupportable position. Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
...
The federal government's income is not the economy, but it is based off of the economy.
Bad economy == low income.
Was that too hard for you?
I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
No, you presented some data to "support" your claim that cutting taxes raised revenues. The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
So now you say that it is because of the WTC attack.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect?
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db07co.xls
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
Pure fantasy. All you have are your fantasies about what would have happened. Otherwise known as a "false assumption".
The fact is that federal revenue is DOWN even with all of Bush's tax cuts.
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
Whereas Clinton showed growth.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue
while someone doing exactly what you claim decreases revenue.
But you aren't wrong. Those figures you presented must be wrong. Clinton couldn't have had growth and other things lead to Bush's tax problems. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket. You're never ever wrong.