That seems to be the common theory around here, but it is pretty much BS.
I worked at Circuit City from last November till July (yay, I'm a programmer now), and I can safely tell you that they encourage reporting theft of any kind, but employee theft is taken way more seriously. Catching customer theft nets you between $25-$250 (after tax) depending on what the customer attempted to steal, and employee theft nets you $250-$2500 depending on what the employee was stealing.
At the store I worked at, one guy was fired for stealing various speaker systems/GPS stuff for his car, and they are pressing charges against him. On the other hand, a very close friend of mine was fired for being handed a free promotional movie ticket after the promotion was over. He just got into a manager position too, so that sucked to see him go. I suppose that in retrospect, it's good that he's no longer with Circuit City, but still, he didn't deserve to be fired over that.
This is completely irrelevant to the topic. Just because you keep pushing things harder that I have no care about proving wrong/irrelevant doesn't mean that I will go on a tangent about them.
Back to what I asked - do you seriously believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
The fact that I disagree with her isn't what made her lose credibility. It was the fact that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about when it came to a number of topics like
Newspapers
Supreme court decisions
Foreign policy (lives near Russia?)
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (she thinks it is bad to spread nuclear power?)
Those are reasons why she lost credibility. The fact that I disagree with her on topics of religion, abortions, economic policy, and so on don't affect her credibility.
... he is talking about redistribution of income by taxing people he decrees to be 'making too much' and handing out checks to people to don't pay any taxes at all.
As I just corrected someone earlier on this same note - the bolded part of your comment is a fabrication. Obama's tax rebate only goes to taxpayers. The half-truth in your statement is that the tax rebate can be given to people who don't pay federal income tax.
Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.
I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
I'd say that Palin lost credibility among people listening any time that she went off of stump speeches and spoke her mind in an interview. SNL had nothing to do with it.
Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.
So, if some fluke of the electoral college allows McCain to get in, every single American (many of whom didn't vote for McCain) should be stuck here? By this logic, should I have seen this coming and preemptively left the country to avoid being shunned, or would it not have made a difference?
Just think for a few seconds what it would be like if you happened to be a citizen of this country and still had the same views.
If you're not actively teaching, you're wasting the students' time.
To add to that thought, I'd like to say that actively teaching can be a difficult thing to classify. The best teacher I had pre-college was hands-down my calc/physics teacher who gave us a large list of problems (relative to highschool - not college) to work on throughout the day and just sat at his desk ready to slowly guide people to the right answer. He only spent like 1/5 days actually teaching new material. He never directly gave the answers out or calculated anything unless he was grading homeworks/tests, yet his method of teaching worked amazingly well. Everyone took his classes knowing it was incredibly difficult, and everyone who passed it learned way more than enough to breeze through the first two semesters of college math/physics.
Despite all of this, there is no way that any sane person could say that this method of teaching would work for 90% of the subjects out there, and it hardly looks "active" to the outside viewer. A number of parents of students failing his classes bitched to have him removed, but the principals have understood how effective he is to the furthering brighter students' education, so he has always been given the respect he deserves.
My parents immigrated to this country when I was 2. My dad had only a high school education, and my mom a middle school education. My brother and I are the first generation of our family to totally grow up in the US and get college educations. ... We went to crappy city schools, and still learned well, because our parents instilled in us a sense of how important our education is.
Given that you went to "city" (public?) schools and in the end were capable of getting a college education, I'd like to question how crappy the schools were in the first place. Apparently you got some useful information out of the process. Do you think that it's possible that your public education could have been worse if your classes had less funding for books and school supplies?
What percentage of your graduating class went on to colleges? Was it a high percentage, indicating that it maybe wasn't so crappy? Was it a low percentage, indicating that maybe your school actually could have used more funding so that more of your classmates could have had received better educations? Early education is important. Your example of why public school funding isn't important isn't doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.
Obama's actual policy has been "$200K for individuals, $250K for couples." He has misstated it in speeches on a few occasions, but that has been his policy on the website for a long time.
So, how much money do you make that you think that your taxes will be that much better under McCain? Even if you fall under one of the higher tax brackets, is it that much more painful? Are you unwilling to consider that under Obama's plan with the working-class having more money to spend that the economy may do better and benefit you more even if your taxes go up?
The flaw that he is talking about is pretty obvious to me. Note that TempySmurf also said "Whether or not this has been done," so he wasn't referring to any facts about demographics - he was just saying that this system (as is) can be abused.
Honestly, I was going to take snippets of this until I realized that I was going to end up quoting the whole whopping 5 sentences that he wrote. It's clear and very to the point. Perhaps you should read it again and tell us what was unclear. If you want it to be reworded, that's also no problem.
I don't know why anyone modded your response as insightful. Sure, the electoral college picks the president, but how they use their votes is determined by how citizens vote.
Actually, it isn't retroactive immunity, it is a vehicle to certify the applicability of existing immunity but we won't argue facts when so many people think otherwise.
I'd like to see more people quote that line whenever the argument of "but Obama voted for telecom immunity too" comes up. Hell, that was his official statement about why he voted for it... but it seems like most slashdotters have given up on this statement. Thanks for confirming that I'm not crazy, and that this bill actually did have merits to being passed (not that I wouldn't have preferred a rewrite without the telecom immunity).
Remember all the companies buying up new equipment to replace the stuff that was not Year-2000 compliant? Do you think that might have played even a SMALL part in a burgeoning economy?
If that is what helped the economy so much, then why did the debt go up so much under Reagan's policies, which had the same goal of stimulating consumer spending? Is there a fundamental difference that I'm missing?
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
Despite my support of Obama, I still maintain that McCain wouldn't be the worst case scenario. Just because I'm not voting for McCain doesn't mean that if he becomes the president, I will vehemently oppose him for the next 4 years.
I certainly hope that some people voting for McCain feel the same way about Obama...
There is only one candidate in this election that has never taken an earmark. There is only one that is even promising to do something to eliminate earmarks.
Eliminating earmarks would do nothing compared to the rest of the money that is being spent by EITHER of the candidates. McCain would increase spending more than Obama, and his increase isn't even covered if he managed to kill all earmarks (which won't matter - politicians will still find ways to request money for projects regardless). Earmarks are a very silly talking point - I'd suggest you drop it.
There is one candidate in this election that has a known record of reaching across the aisle and working with the "other side". There is only one candidate that has ever criticized his own party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but two examples of McCain going against his own party were his opposition to Bush's tax cuts, and his support of immigration. As of today, he has changed his view to match that of his party. To be honest, I'd be much happier if I found out that McCain was just lying to the Republican base on these two issues to try to gather more votes.
Are there more examples? Today, does he still stand by his criticism of his own party, or does he support the mainstream Republican views?
The problem with doing something like that is that there will be people who know the answer to that and were just in a hurry clicking boxes. The number of false positives caught by a method like this will greatly outweigh the true positives caught, and there will be plenty of true morons who (by your standards) shouldn't be able to vote but still get past your simple check.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be the common theory around here, but it is pretty much BS.
I worked at Circuit City from last November till July (yay, I'm a programmer now), and I can safely tell you that they encourage reporting theft of any kind, but employee theft is taken way more seriously. Catching customer theft nets you between $25-$250 (after tax) depending on what the customer attempted to steal, and employee theft nets you $250-$2500 depending on what the employee was stealing.
At the store I worked at, one guy was fired for stealing various speaker systems/GPS stuff for his car, and they are pressing charges against him. On the other hand, a very close friend of mine was fired for being handed a free promotional movie ticket after the promotion was over. He just got into a manager position too, so that sucked to see him go. I suppose that in retrospect, it's good that he's no longer with Circuit City, but still, he didn't deserve to be fired over that.
Erm... did many people interpret it as such? When I first read it, I definitely didn't imagine something as intricate as some crazy sci-fi creation.
Whyever do you think that the Democrats are in favour of fiscal conservatism?
Mainly because I (and presumably the parent) have seen a number of graphs that look like this.
This is completely irrelevant to the topic. Just because you keep pushing things harder that I have no care about proving wrong/irrelevant doesn't mean that I will go on a tangent about them.
Back to what I asked - do you seriously believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
The fact that I disagree with her isn't what made her lose credibility. It was the fact that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about when it came to a number of topics like
Those are reasons why she lost credibility. The fact that I disagree with her on topics of religion, abortions, economic policy, and so on don't affect her credibility.
As an afterthought, maybe it was someone's intention to fire up Olbermann's audience and thus make them more likely to vote today?
... he is talking about redistribution of income by taxing people he decrees to be 'making too much' and handing out checks to people to don't pay any taxes at all.
As I just corrected someone earlier on this same note - the bolded part of your comment is a fabrication. Obama's tax rebate only goes to taxpayers. The half-truth in your statement is that the tax rebate can be given to people who don't pay federal income tax.
Riddle me this; name one close personal or professional associate of Sen. Obama that isn't a) a commununist radical, b) islamic extremist or c) part of the corrupt Chicago machine.
I think this quote provides great insight on how the media has warped your mind. Is it that hard for you to believe that Obama has associates who don't match these categories contrived by the media?
If you believe that those three weren't actually investigated, you match the description of a conspiracy nut. Regarding Ayers/Rezco, there are plenty of people who are interested in those stories and plenty of people who go around claiming they have those stories. The problem is that their sources of information are pretty shaky, and much of what they "uncover" is totally contrived and usually irrelevant.
As for Wright, I think a fair comparison would be Palin's church, and I generally hear much less about that one than I do Wright.
I'd say that Palin lost credibility among people listening any time that she went off of stump speeches and spoke her mind in an interview. SNL had nothing to do with it.
Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.
So, if some fluke of the electoral college allows McCain to get in, every single American (many of whom didn't vote for McCain) should be stuck here? By this logic, should I have seen this coming and preemptively left the country to avoid being shunned, or would it not have made a difference?
Just think for a few seconds what it would be like if you happened to be a citizen of this country and still had the same views.
No, he called him one for wanting to increase income taxes on people who do pay income taxes and then write checks to people who don't.
Fixed that for you. If you claim that he's giving money to people who don't pay taxes at all, you are spreading a common misconception. Sorry.
If you're not actively teaching, you're wasting the students' time.
To add to that thought, I'd like to say that actively teaching can be a difficult thing to classify. The best teacher I had pre-college was hands-down my calc/physics teacher who gave us a large list of problems (relative to highschool - not college) to work on throughout the day and just sat at his desk ready to slowly guide people to the right answer. He only spent like 1/5 days actually teaching new material. He never directly gave the answers out or calculated anything unless he was grading homeworks/tests, yet his method of teaching worked amazingly well. Everyone took his classes knowing it was incredibly difficult, and everyone who passed it learned way more than enough to breeze through the first two semesters of college math/physics.
Despite all of this, there is no way that any sane person could say that this method of teaching would work for 90% of the subjects out there, and it hardly looks "active" to the outside viewer. A number of parents of students failing his classes bitched to have him removed, but the principals have understood how effective he is to the furthering brighter students' education, so he has always been given the respect he deserves.
/salute Mr. Carey.
My parents immigrated to this country when I was 2. My dad had only a high school education, and my mom a middle school education. My brother and I are the first generation of our family to totally grow up in the US and get college educations.
...
We went to crappy city schools, and still learned well, because our parents instilled in us a sense of how important our education is.
Given that you went to "city" (public?) schools and in the end were capable of getting a college education, I'd like to question how crappy the schools were in the first place. Apparently you got some useful information out of the process. Do you think that it's possible that your public education could have been worse if your classes had less funding for books and school supplies?
What percentage of your graduating class went on to colleges? Was it a high percentage, indicating that it maybe wasn't so crappy? Was it a low percentage, indicating that maybe your school actually could have used more funding so that more of your classmates could have had received better educations? Early education is important. Your example of why public school funding isn't important isn't doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.
Obama's actual policy has been "$200K for individuals, $250K for couples." He has misstated it in speeches on a few occasions, but that has been his policy on the website for a long time.
So, how much money do you make that you think that your taxes will be that much better under McCain? Even if you fall under one of the higher tax brackets, is it that much more painful? Are you unwilling to consider that under Obama's plan with the working-class having more money to spend that the economy may do better and benefit you more even if your taxes go up?
Then you move to Canada. But beware...
The flaw that he is talking about is pretty obvious to me. Note that TempySmurf also said "Whether or not this has been done," so he wasn't referring to any facts about demographics - he was just saying that this system (as is) can be abused.
Honestly, I was going to take snippets of this until I realized that I was going to end up quoting the whole whopping 5 sentences that he wrote. It's clear and very to the point. Perhaps you should read it again and tell us what was unclear. If you want it to be reworded, that's also no problem.
I don't know why anyone modded your response as insightful. Sure, the electoral college picks the president, but how they use their votes is determined by how citizens vote.
Actually, it isn't retroactive immunity, it is a vehicle to certify the applicability of existing immunity but we won't argue facts when so many people think otherwise.
I'd like to see more people quote that line whenever the argument of "but Obama voted for telecom immunity too" comes up. Hell, that was his official statement about why he voted for it... but it seems like most slashdotters have given up on this statement. Thanks for confirming that I'm not crazy, and that this bill actually did have merits to being passed (not that I wouldn't have preferred a rewrite without the telecom immunity).
Remember all the companies buying up new equipment to replace the stuff that was not Year-2000 compliant? Do you think that might have played even a SMALL part in a burgeoning economy?
If that is what helped the economy so much, then why did the debt go up so much under Reagan's policies, which had the same goal of stimulating consumer spending? Is there a fundamental difference that I'm missing?
She is the epitome of the liberal women's movement.
[citation needed]
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
Despite my support of Obama, I still maintain that McCain wouldn't be the worst case scenario. Just because I'm not voting for McCain doesn't mean that if he becomes the president, I will vehemently oppose him for the next 4 years.
I certainly hope that some people voting for McCain feel the same way about Obama...
538 had a nice mention of what seems to be an already high turnout of black voters.
There is only one candidate in this election that has never taken an earmark. There is only one that is even promising to do something to eliminate earmarks.
Eliminating earmarks would do nothing compared to the rest of the money that is being spent by EITHER of the candidates. McCain would increase spending more than Obama, and his increase isn't even covered if he managed to kill all earmarks (which won't matter - politicians will still find ways to request money for projects regardless). Earmarks are a very silly talking point - I'd suggest you drop it.
There is one candidate in this election that has a known record of reaching across the aisle and working with the "other side". There is only one candidate that has ever criticized his own party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but two examples of McCain going against his own party were his opposition to Bush's tax cuts, and his support of immigration. As of today, he has changed his view to match that of his party. To be honest, I'd be much happier if I found out that McCain was just lying to the Republican base on these two issues to try to gather more votes.
Are there more examples? Today, does he still stand by his criticism of his own party, or does he support the mainstream Republican views?
Any chance you have a link to the wikipedia article(s) that states this? That's good information to spread around.
The problem with doing something like that is that there will be people who know the answer to that and were just in a hurry clicking boxes. The number of false positives caught by a method like this will greatly outweigh the true positives caught, and there will be plenty of true morons who (by your standards) shouldn't be able to vote but still get past your simple check.