Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?
Here's a summary of the ones I know of, based on Politifact:
1) Stimulus package. Passed, and current estimated at having added 3.5M jobs to the economy. 2) Raise taxes for people making over $250k/year. He ultimately caved rather than let the GOP cut off unemployment checks to millions of people. 3) Health care reform. Done, though lacking the public option he had touted on the campaign trail. He tried to get it, but ultimately Lieberman and a few others wouldn't budge. 4) Keep lobbyists out of the system for at least two years from their last job. I don't know how, or if, he ever intended to do that one. Oddly, he mainly talked about it after he was elected. Maybe he just really didn't understand how DC works... 5) Establish consumer credit safeguards. Done (for credit cards, mortgages, and student loans). 6) Allow bankruptcy courts to modify predatory mortgages. He tried, but it got voted down in the House. Badly. 7) Cap and trade. Filibustered to death in the Senate. 8) Immigration reform. Hasn't really been addressed. The DREAM act was by no means comprehensive reform. 9) Increase investment in science and technology. Considering he's increased science budgets by around $75 billion over the past two years, I'd say he's stuck by that one. 10) Repeal DADT. Done. 11) More transparency in the government. He has stood by that one, just not to the extent that most people on Slashdot want. "More transparency" doesn't mean putting Assange in charge of the NSA. You can now find freely available audits on the use of the stimulus funds, for example. Good luck tracing the TARP money sent out under Bush. 12) Net Neutrality. Let's be honest. While this is probably the top of Slashdot's agenda, it's likely the bottom of his. He hasn't touched the issue much one way or the other.
So of the top 12, there are 3 that he hasn't really tried to accomplish: Cutting down on lobbying, reforming immigration, and net neutrality. I'd say telling the truth 75% of the time is remarkably good for a politician, pathetically low as that standard may be.
So wealthy crooks can laugh off their sentences? It's hard enough to get a conviction against the rich with their teams of expensive lawyers, and you'd want to make it so that should they actually lose, it can all go away with some tiny check?
Also, what do you mean, "deny them welfare"? Are you one of those ancient conservatives who still rails against "Welfare Queens"? That system was eliminated in 96. Or do you mean welfare in a more general sense, like food stamps and disability insurance? In that case, you're basically suggesting that if an unemployed or handicapped person commits a crime, they should be thrown out on the streets to starve to death. Even ignoring the sheer inhumanity of such a system, don't you think it might lead to more crimes being committed in desperation?
I'm all for using finding ways to reduce the non-violent prison population, but not ones that disproportionately punish the poor.
A friend of mine is a aerospace engineer at Lockheed, and about four years ago we were talking about future improvements to airplanes. I don't recall how it came up, but I was wondering how the design could really develop much beyond where it already is... a tube full of people, with wings. He sketched out something almost identical to Lockheed's submission here, and bemoaned the fact that buyers tend to reject out of hand anything they don't immediately recognize. He told me that modern design software makes it possible to design far more efficient planes that would look very different from the ones we now have, but it's difficult (read: impossible) to get anyone to invest in a plan that deviates from the known-good designs that have been working for decades.
What a coincidence...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...that he would offer this wager after the warmest year on record. A more reasonable wager would be on whether or not 2020 will be above the historical average for the past century. Smart money says "yes".
No, see, you think of Ray as some sort of amazing lawyer, because he's popular around here. But he was wrong about this. Plain and simple. Lawyers from both sides, and judges, and juries, all looked at this case, and the conclusion was that she was in the wrong and had to pay. For him to claim that all those people did it wrong, and his conclusion must be the best... it's the height of arrogance (or maybe just a play for more views for his blog).
The trial took place in the real universe, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Well, considering part of the plan is to let people keep their current providers, I'm sure that'd work just fine. Nice of you to assume the plan is stupid though.
The rest of the first world has national health care. They are healthier than us, live longer than us, and pay less than us. Stop believing the FUD that the Republicans are pumping out.
Both offer lower quality service, with rationing, and less access to innovative procedures. The problem with a state run insurance plan is that that the state has never made anything more efficient.
Bullshit. We have lower life expectancy than they do in Canada, England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and virtually any other first world nation you care to name. We have higher infant mortality than any of those nations. And yet, we're paying twice as much.
Governments all over the world are taking much better care of their citizens than we are, and are doing it for less money. Do you really believe that we can't do the same? Do you really think that we're just worse than them?
Nor to the people who can't help but praise him every time he farts. Be at least half honest and admit that there are two sides to this zealotry.
Those "people" don't exist. They're strawmen created by people who are desperately afraid that the guy they voted against will turn out to be a good president.
During the election, the hardcore conservative nitwits were claiming that Obama's supporters thought he was the second coming. Did anyone actually believe that? No. But if you lie enough, people start to believe it. That's been the GOP's specialty for the past several years. I hope they get back to normal soon, but I suspect I have quite some time to wait.
Don't be dense. In common English, as spoken, it's a crime. From a technical standpoint, it may not be, but technicalities won't save you when it's your ass on the line.
Well, you're right that it's not really homeopathic, but you're wrong about it never being marketed as such. In fact, the word "Homeopathic" appears right on the front of the box, as is plainly visible here.
However, the concentration of the active ingredient is around 2%, whereas the concentration in a true homeopathic "cure" would be approximately 0%. Basically, they marketed an unproven drug as homeopathic, when it wasn't, in order to get around FDA regulations.
Because you don't want to commit an ad hominim fallacy?
I'll see your "ad hominem [sic] fallacy" and raise you a "credibility of the witness."
If you don't know what "sic" means, don't use it.
Also, the expert's beliefs in some other field do not affect his skill in his specialty. A fantastic chef might have appalling taste in wine, but that won't stop me from eating at his restaurant, because all I care about is the skill in question.
I think the story was that they announced the victory after they had counted some portion of the votes and seen that Ahaminejad had a significant lead.
Right. After all, Khamenei's vote is "some potion of the votes."
Well, I don't pay attention to MSNBC, as they're nearly as bad as Fox, just in the opposite direction.
CNN and the NY Times have been covering this story non-stop since the voting started a couple days ago. In fact, it's the front page story on the Times.
If Fox says that its competitors aren't covering the story, that's just because Fox wants you to stay tuned to their station.
They were not a democracy then. They had elected officials, the same way they do now, but they were ruled by the Shah. Mr. Mossadegh offset the power of the Shah somewhat by seizing "emergency" powers, but that hardly counts as democracy.
Of course, none of that gives justification to operation Ajax.
This election would have had little impact on foreign policy, but the Iranian president does have a lot of leeway on domestic matters. Under Ahmadinejad, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketted. Rather than try to take action to fix it, he just lies about the figures (easy to do, when you control the media). That was really a key issue in the "election".
Of course, not having a Holocaust denier as president would probably help foreign relations a bit as well.
(Yes I know he never comes out and denies it. He just "questions" it. A lot.)
The extent of the fraud perpetrated is clearly intended to send a message. If the powers that be in Iran just wanted Ahmadinejad reelected, they could have done so subtly. Give him 45% or so in round 1, to Mousavi's 39%, and then have him win round 2 with 52% or so. People wouldn't like it, but it'd at least be believable.
No, by giving Ahmadinejad ~67% of the vote, even in Mousavi's hometown, they are very clearly sending a message to the people that their votes do not count. After such a high turnout, after so much enthusiasm, this is a clear move to disenfranchise the Iranian people, so that they don't even try to vote against the entrenched powers in the future.
Because poor people, and non-English speakers, are getting screwed over so that corporations can squeeze some money out of what once belonged to the public.
It's nice that you don't watch TV. If I were closer, I'd give you a gold star. Lots of other people do watch TV though, and they're pissed about having that taken away for no good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia dreams of empire lost. China dreams of empire to come. What does the US dream about? Empire continuing.
Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?
Here's a summary of the ones I know of, based on Politifact:
1) Stimulus package. Passed, and current estimated at having added 3.5M jobs to the economy.
2) Raise taxes for people making over $250k/year. He ultimately caved rather than let the GOP cut off unemployment checks to millions of people.
3) Health care reform. Done, though lacking the public option he had touted on the campaign trail. He tried to get it, but ultimately Lieberman and a few others wouldn't budge.
4) Keep lobbyists out of the system for at least two years from their last job. I don't know how, or if, he ever intended to do that one. Oddly, he mainly talked about it after he was elected. Maybe he just really didn't understand how DC works...
5) Establish consumer credit safeguards. Done (for credit cards, mortgages, and student loans).
6) Allow bankruptcy courts to modify predatory mortgages. He tried, but it got voted down in the House. Badly.
7) Cap and trade. Filibustered to death in the Senate.
8) Immigration reform. Hasn't really been addressed. The DREAM act was by no means comprehensive reform.
9) Increase investment in science and technology. Considering he's increased science budgets by around $75 billion over the past two years, I'd say he's stuck by that one.
10) Repeal DADT. Done.
11) More transparency in the government. He has stood by that one, just not to the extent that most people on Slashdot want. "More transparency" doesn't mean putting Assange in charge of the NSA. You can now find freely available audits on the use of the stimulus funds, for example. Good luck tracing the TARP money sent out under Bush.
12) Net Neutrality. Let's be honest. While this is probably the top of Slashdot's agenda, it's likely the bottom of his. He hasn't touched the issue much one way or the other.
So of the top 12, there are 3 that he hasn't really tried to accomplish: Cutting down on lobbying, reforming immigration, and net neutrality. I'd say telling the truth 75% of the time is remarkably good for a politician, pathetically low as that standard may be.
It's a bit off topic, but I don't think NYT requires registration, and I was certainly able to access their article without logging in.
So wealthy crooks can laugh off their sentences? It's hard enough to get a conviction against the rich with their teams of expensive lawyers, and you'd want to make it so that should they actually lose, it can all go away with some tiny check?
Also, what do you mean, "deny them welfare"? Are you one of those ancient conservatives who still rails against "Welfare Queens"? That system was eliminated in 96. Or do you mean welfare in a more general sense, like food stamps and disability insurance? In that case, you're basically suggesting that if an unemployed or handicapped person commits a crime, they should be thrown out on the streets to starve to death. Even ignoring the sheer inhumanity of such a system, don't you think it might lead to more crimes being committed in desperation?
I'm all for using finding ways to reduce the non-violent prison population, but not ones that disproportionately punish the poor.
A friend of mine is a aerospace engineer at Lockheed, and about four years ago we were talking about future improvements to airplanes. I don't recall how it came up, but I was wondering how the design could really develop much beyond where it already is... a tube full of people, with wings. He sketched out something almost identical to Lockheed's submission here, and bemoaned the fact that buyers tend to reject out of hand anything they don't immediately recognize. He told me that modern design software makes it possible to design far more efficient planes that would look very different from the ones we now have, but it's difficult (read: impossible) to get anyone to invest in a plan that deviates from the known-good designs that have been working for decades.
...that he would offer this wager after the warmest year on record. A more reasonable wager would be on whether or not 2020 will be above the historical average for the past century. Smart money says "yes".
No, see, you think of Ray as some sort of amazing lawyer, because he's popular around here. But he was wrong about this. Plain and simple. Lawyers from both sides, and judges, and juries, all looked at this case, and the conclusion was that she was in the wrong and had to pay. For him to claim that all those people did it wrong, and his conclusion must be the best... it's the height of arrogance (or maybe just a play for more views for his blog).
The trial took place in the real universe, whether you agree with the outcome or not. Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Well, considering part of the plan is to let people keep their current providers, I'm sure that'd work just fine. Nice of you to assume the plan is stupid though.
The rest of the first world has national health care. They are healthier than us, live longer than us, and pay less than us. Stop believing the FUD that the Republicans are pumping out.
Both offer lower quality service, with rationing, and less access to innovative procedures. The problem with a state run insurance plan is that that the state has never made anything more efficient.
Bullshit. We have lower life expectancy than they do in Canada, England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and virtually any other first world nation you care to name. We have higher infant mortality than any of those nations. And yet, we're paying twice as much.
Governments all over the world are taking much better care of their citizens than we are, and are doing it for less money. Do you really believe that we can't do the same? Do you really think that we're just worse than them?
The actual truth doesn't matter to them.
Nor to the people who can't help but praise him every time he farts. Be at least half honest and admit that there are two sides to this zealotry.
Those "people" don't exist. They're strawmen created by people who are desperately afraid that the guy they voted against will turn out to be a good president.
During the election, the hardcore conservative nitwits were claiming that Obama's supporters thought he was the second coming. Did anyone actually believe that? No. But if you lie enough, people start to believe it. That's been the GOP's specialty for the past several years. I hope they get back to normal soon, but I suspect I have quite some time to wait.
Don't be dense. In common English, as spoken, it's a crime. From a technical standpoint, it may not be, but technicalities won't save you when it's your ass on the line.
Well, you're right that it's not really homeopathic, but you're wrong about it never being marketed as such. In fact, the word "Homeopathic" appears right on the front of the box, as is plainly visible here.
However, the concentration of the active ingredient is around 2%, whereas the concentration in a true homeopathic "cure" would be approximately 0%. Basically, they marketed an unproven drug as homeopathic, when it wasn't, in order to get around FDA regulations.
Anosmic
Doesn't have the simplicity of blind or deaf, I know.
I'll see your "ad hominem [sic] fallacy" and raise you a "credibility of the witness."
If you don't know what "sic" means, don't use it.
Also, the expert's beliefs in some other field do not affect his skill in his specialty. A fantastic chef might have appalling taste in wine, but that won't stop me from eating at his restaurant, because all I care about is the skill in question.
I think the story was that they announced the victory after they had counted some portion of the votes and seen that Ahaminejad had a significant lead.
Right. After all, Khamenei's vote is "some potion of the votes."
Then you're why the summary said "almost 100%"!
Well, I don't pay attention to MSNBC, as they're nearly as bad as Fox, just in the opposite direction.
CNN and the NY Times have been covering this story non-stop since the voting started a couple days ago. In fact, it's the front page story on the Times.
If Fox says that its competitors aren't covering the story, that's just because Fox wants you to stay tuned to their station.
Already refuted, here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html
They were not a democracy then. They had elected officials, the same way they do now, but they were ruled by the Shah. Mr. Mossadegh offset the power of the Shah somewhat by seizing "emergency" powers, but that hardly counts as democracy.
Of course, none of that gives justification to operation Ajax.
Do Mousavi's supporters consider themselves pro-Bush? I'm pretty sure just about everyone is anti-Bush.
This election would have had little impact on foreign policy, but the Iranian president does have a lot of leeway on domestic matters. Under Ahmadinejad, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketted. Rather than try to take action to fix it, he just lies about the figures (easy to do, when you control the media). That was really a key issue in the "election".
Of course, not having a Holocaust denier as president would probably help foreign relations a bit as well.
(Yes I know he never comes out and denies it. He just "questions" it. A lot.)
First rule of cheating.. don't let people know you're cheating.
...unless you want them to know just how little their voices matter.
The extent of the fraud perpetrated is clearly intended to send a message. If the powers that be in Iran just wanted Ahmadinejad reelected, they could have done so subtly. Give him 45% or so in round 1, to Mousavi's 39%, and then have him win round 2 with 52% or so. People wouldn't like it, but it'd at least be believable.
No, by giving Ahmadinejad ~67% of the vote, even in Mousavi's hometown, they are very clearly sending a message to the people that their votes do not count. After such a high turnout, after so much enthusiasm, this is a clear move to disenfranchise the Iranian people, so that they don't even try to vote against the entrenched powers in the future.
Because poor people, and non-English speakers, are getting screwed over so that corporations can squeeze some money out of what once belonged to the public.
It's nice that you don't watch TV. If I were closer, I'd give you a gold star. Lots of other people do watch TV though, and they're pissed about having that taken away for no good reason.