Well, you did take that out of context, you admiited as much when you resorted to paraphrasing, but that's not important, your quote proves nothing beyond your own intellectual failings.
Or is a freely elected government equivalent to a dictatorship in your mind?
"His point is that the difference is capital that has to flow back into purchases of U.S. assets (bonds, stocks, or DFI), not goods for which he has already accounted."
1) he didn't account for the goods. You must have misse dthat when I pointed it out in my post, and saying "he did" does not mean he did.
2) None of what you said makes any sense from an economic standpoint.
I don't see the point in debating this with you when you don't seem willing to read the posts you're replying to or even understand basic economic theory.
"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"
First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?
"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "
The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)
"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"
Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.
It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...
So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?
"Since these goods have to be bought capital flows out (eg to gulf states for buying oil). "
And goods flow in.
"This capital flows back in the form of investments in US companies."
Or in the form of purchases of US goods.
These glaring omissions to your "formula" make me wonder what your agenda is. An honest analysis of the facts doesn't brign anyone to the conclusion you've reached.
"By Parks' account, Blake said, "Y'all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats."[8] Three of them complied. Parks said, "The driver wanted us to stand up, the four of us. We didn't move at the beginning, but he says, 'Let me have these seats.' And the other three people moved, but I didn't."[9] The black man sitting next to her gave up his seat. Parks moved, but toward the window seat; she did not get up to move to the newly repositioned colored section.[10] Blake then said, "Why don't you stand up?" Parks responded, "I don't think I should have to stand up." Blake called the police to arrest Parks. When recalling the incident for Eyes on the Prize, a 1987 public television series on the Civil Rights Movement, Parks said, "When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, 'No, I'm not.' And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.'"[11]
During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, when asked why she had decided not to vacate her bus seat, Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen."[12]"
I don't think anyone who reads that could claim she wasn't lloking for conflict, and your assertion otherwise demonstrates that you need to educate yourself further about the subject before speaking.
I notice you fail to admit it was exuse making. My entire point was that people like you make excuses for your people because it's more important to be right than to do right.
Your dismissal of my points, in total opposition to logic and fact (specifically your "few prgamatic Democrats comment which shows your ignorance of the veto process) proves that it's more important for you to defend the bad decisions of your candidate than hold them to a standard.
And the moderation of your excuse making just reinforces how many partisans are willing ot look the other way because it's their guy messing up.
Excuses are excuses. Saying "actually" get's you +5 on a partisan filled left leaning web board, but it doesn't change the reality that you're accepting crap excuses and making them yourself.
I honestly couldn't care less about what you think is "particularly controversial" or not. I care about deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to muddy up a candidate.
Your inability to see the difference again proves my point, you're arguing that it's ok to deliberately misrepresent the stae of Mccain's health because the misrepresentation is true, just not in Mccain's case.
And I'm telling you that's bullshit, and you should know better.
"Actually, I think he was more concerned with passing the appropriations bills for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The Republicans know these bills are critical, and vetoing them would wreak havoc with the operation of government."
Actually, if they were that important, they'd have passed after a veto that forced a removal of the rider.
WHy is it that this excuse also gets propagated as thought it's true? If the bills are that important, they'll get passed. Acting like they need the rider kind of destroys the argument that they are important.
Lastly
"The Republicans also knew that a veto over a small rider --- however well deserved --- would probably not force them to remove the language, since it would only take a few "pragmatic" Democrats in Congress to side with them and override the veto"
I don't see anything +5 insightful about baseless specualtion on your part. You could not, and do not, know that any of that is true, and regarding overriding the veto, do you know how many votes that takes? It's far more than "a few pragmamtic Democrats".
What is insightful about more excuses and incorrect math by this poster?
I ride a motorcycle. Statistics say that it is more dangerous for me to be riding in heavy traffic. If someone deliberately increases risk to me, is that still peaceful? Ok a stretch I know but...
Make it more concrete. Accidents go up in traffic. And then there's road rage. I'm not saying this isn't peaceful, but I think enough risk is there to be grounds for debate. And honestly, traffic sucks, don't be jerks and make it worse for us. I'd probably be against it just because it pisses me off so much.
"As to the Dickey amendment--- that was written by a Republican Congressman and attached to a major appropriations bill (that's what "rider" means). Clinton signed it because there's no line-item veto, and thus a President sometimes has to accept undesirable riders when the alternative is killing an important bill"
Exactly what you asked for, you're welcome.
Of course, this is where you tell us it's not an excuse right? Because "I know what he did was wrong, but he had to because _____" is, somehow, not an excuse.
It was a bad policy, and I'm well past the point where "it had a rider" is a good enough reason not to veto it. The only reason something like that doesn't get vetoed is when the person is more concerned about getting re-elected than making good policy, and that crap has to stop.
And it won't until people like you and OP stop making excuses for your people.
That you, before looking it up, concluded anything about his odds proves my point. You were basing your opinions on what you heard, and what you heard is specifically crafted to make you think the worst.
"What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? "
Is it science (no)? Is it relevant to current society (yes)? Does it match the evidence (no)? What is it's cultural significance, how should it influence policy, where should it be taught, and the list goes on.
Not eveyone thinks what you think as strongly as you do. How do you propose to define these isues for them without debate? Are you going to curse at them until they get it? The fact that you think there "doesn't seem to be a whole lot to debate" definitivley proves the debate is necessary.
Or are you happy sitting back, assured you're right while creationists are activley promoting their side?
One last thing. Creationism is beleived by a large number of people. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people seek to squash debate as though that makes their beliefs, and the societal effects of their beleifs, go away. They are influencing society every day, and if nothing else, it is necessary to promote a counterpoint in order to mitigate those societal effects.
"The problem with that is it's the Radicals from the GOP that are currently buttfucking our country like it's a new inmate, with the support of the rest of the party.
I started thinking for myself, and I came to the conclusion that any group that can put forth and support Bush is a group that isn't worth even a second chance no matter how nice the non-crazies are."
I'm sorry, but that's not the problem. The problem is too many people like yourself who think sying things like this won't turn people away from your arguments, no matter how correct. You'll probably evince no concern for those people as they don't "get it" anyway, but what good is being right when the people you need behind you would rather tell you to shut up, stop bellowing like a drunk frat boy, and let the adults discuss things than listne to a single word you have to say?
"By offering arguments that are technically correct, but lead the reader to a surprisingly false conclusion, you actually do serious harm to your credibility and damage the cause you support."
John McCain is 72 years old and has had several cancerous growths removed.
I'm not an actuarial, but I bet the odds are not good that he'd make it through a full term. Then, I'm afraid, li'l Missy's views are going to be of great consequence.
What are the odds? I see you got modded up, but what, exactly are the odds? I don't see anything insightful at all about uninformed, morbid speculation totally devoid of facts.
I mean, you say the "odds aren't good" what does that mean? It's just one kind of indefinable slander that I've seen, and it's disgusting. It's really sleazy to say something like that, leave it unquantified, then use your baseless speculation as a point of argument.
If anything speaks to the silliness of these labels and the criteria or them, it's that someone whose father was from Africa can genuinely be argued to not be "African-American".
He obviously is, but your point that "African-American" normally doesn't refer to people who are actually from Africa recently, is also true.
You'll dispute it and have it removed despite their presumed (and not stipulated) "unwillingness", as it is the reporting agencies who make the final decision and they are legally exposed if they don't.
They get nothing from the person who makes the false claim, and have no exposure if they choose to side with you and not list it. If they side against you and they're wrong, they can be sued.
So, the idea you're trying to sell us is that a company that has no incentive at all to side with a merchant who reports inaccurate data, will do so anyway, while refusing to correct that inaccurate data despite the fact that they will expose themselves to a lawsuit by doing so.
In the US it's prorated (flat rate was ruled illegal recently, and I don't think most are using flat rate anyway), so it's not necessarily as much as you say. And honestly, I don't see why there shouldn't be a penalty for breaking a contract I agreed to. As far as the phone company, it sucks that they can do this, but what's your alternative? They're allowed to set their terms of service within reason, and I think this, while onerous, is within reason.
I think Obama's "yea" vote on the bill that contained the wiretapping indemnity was more a problem of our current system of multi-issue bills than a true expression of Obama's ideals.
I hear what you're saying, but that just isn't good enough. The importance of the lesson to the Telecoms and the administration outweighs the quality you speak of. The price was too high.
Sorry, I just found it funny that you told him he didn't have a clue then you act like that one thing is the reason for these warnings, especially when many of the carcinogens that are listed in California won't leach into anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you did take that out of context, you admiited as much when you resorted to paraphrasing, but that's not important, your quote proves nothing beyond your own intellectual failings.
Or is a freely elected government equivalent to a dictatorship in your mind?
Your turn, let the spin begin.
"His point is that the difference is capital that has to flow back into purchases of U.S. assets (bonds, stocks, or DFI), not goods for which he has already accounted."
1) he didn't account for the goods. You must have misse dthat when I pointed it out in my post, and saying "he did" does not mean he did.
2) None of what you said makes any sense from an economic standpoint.
I don't see the point in debating this with you when you don't seem willing to read the posts you're replying to or even understand basic economic theory.
"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"
First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?
"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "
The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)
"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student
Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.
So what about secondary school?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...
So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?
Well, you'd be wrong.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
#1. What else is there to say?
I don't like taxation any more than you do, but nothing you said there was true to the facts.
"Since these goods have to be bought capital flows out (eg to gulf states for buying oil). "
And goods flow in.
"This capital flows back in the form of investments in US companies."
Or in the form of purchases of US goods.
These glaring omissions to your "formula" make me wonder what your agenda is. An honest analysis of the facts doesn't brign anyone to the conclusion you've reached.
The deficit is not the same thing as the debt.
You knew that though, when you responded to his "the amount of debt..." comment with "You do realize the Federal deficit is...", right?
"If you ask me, Russia has a greater capacity to wage war than the US currently"
Then I suppose it's a good thing they only ask people who know something about the subject, huh?
"Rosa was not actively seeking conflict. "
Oh really?
I don't think anyone who reads that could claim she wasn't lloking for conflict, and your assertion otherwise demonstrates that you need to educate yourself further about the subject before speaking.
I notice you fail to admit it was exuse making. My entire point was that people like you make excuses for your people because it's more important to be right than to do right.
Your dismissal of my points, in total opposition to logic and fact (specifically your "few prgamatic Democrats comment which shows your ignorance of the veto process) proves that it's more important for you to defend the bad decisions of your candidate than hold them to a standard.
And the moderation of your excuse making just reinforces how many partisans are willing ot look the other way because it's their guy messing up.
Excuses are excuses. Saying "actually" get's you +5 on a partisan filled left leaning web board, but it doesn't change the reality that you're accepting crap excuses and making them yourself.
I honestly couldn't care less about what you think is "particularly controversial" or not. I care about deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to muddy up a candidate.
Your inability to see the difference again proves my point, you're arguing that it's ok to deliberately misrepresent the stae of Mccain's health because the misrepresentation is true, just not in Mccain's case.
And I'm telling you that's bullshit, and you should know better.
"Actually, I think he was more concerned with passing the appropriations bills for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The Republicans know these bills are critical, and vetoing them would wreak havoc with the operation of government."
Actually, if they were that important, they'd have passed after a veto that forced a removal of the rider.
WHy is it that this excuse also gets propagated as thought it's true? If the bills are that important, they'll get passed. Acting like they need the rider kind of destroys the argument that they are important.
Lastly
"The Republicans also knew that a veto over a small rider --- however well deserved --- would probably not force them to remove the language, since it would only take a few "pragmatic" Democrats in Congress to side with them and override the veto"
I don't see anything +5 insightful about baseless specualtion on your part. You could not, and do not, know that any of that is true, and regarding overriding the veto, do you know how many votes that takes? It's far more than "a few pragmamtic Democrats".
What is insightful about more excuses and incorrect math by this poster?
Let me play a bit of Devil's Advocate.
I ride a motorcycle. Statistics say that it is more dangerous for me to be riding in heavy traffic. If someone deliberately increases risk to me, is that still peaceful? Ok a stretch I know but...
Make it more concrete. Accidents go up in traffic. And then there's road rage. I'm not saying this isn't peaceful, but I think enough risk is there to be grounds for debate. And honestly, traffic sucks, don't be jerks and make it worse for us. I'd probably be against it just because it pisses me off so much.
"As to the Dickey amendment--- that was written by a Republican Congressman and attached to a major appropriations bill (that's what "rider" means). Clinton signed it because there's no line-item veto, and thus a President sometimes has to accept undesirable riders when the alternative is killing an important bill"
Exactly what you asked for, you're welcome.
Of course, this is where you tell us it's not an excuse right? Because "I know what he did was wrong, but he had to because _____" is, somehow, not an excuse.
It was a bad policy, and I'm well past the point where "it had a rider" is a good enough reason not to veto it. The only reason something like that doesn't get vetoed is when the person is more concerned about getting re-elected than making good policy, and that crap has to stop.
And it won't until people like you and OP stop making excuses for your people.
He's already survived seven years.
That you, before looking it up, concluded anything about his odds proves my point. You were basing your opinions on what you heard, and what you heard is specifically crafted to make you think the worst.
"What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? "
Is it science (no)? Is it relevant to current society (yes)? Does it match the evidence (no)? What is it's cultural significance, how should it influence policy, where should it be taught, and the list goes on.
Not eveyone thinks what you think as strongly as you do. How do you propose to define these isues for them without debate? Are you going to curse at them until they get it? The fact that you think there "doesn't seem to be a whole lot to debate" definitivley proves the debate is necessary.
Or are you happy sitting back, assured you're right while creationists are activley promoting their side?
One last thing. Creationism is beleived by a large number of people. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people seek to squash debate as though that makes their beliefs, and the societal effects of their beleifs, go away. They are influencing society every day, and if nothing else, it is necessary to promote a counterpoint in order to mitigate those societal effects.
"The problem with that is it's the Radicals from the GOP that are currently buttfucking our country like it's a new inmate, with the support of the rest of the party.
I started thinking for myself, and I came to the conclusion that any group that can put forth and support Bush is a group that isn't worth even a second chance no matter how nice the non-crazies are."
I'm sorry, but that's not the problem. The problem is too many people like yourself who think sying things like this won't turn people away from your arguments, no matter how correct. You'll probably evince no concern for those people as they don't "get it" anyway, but what good is being right when the people you need behind you would rather tell you to shut up, stop bellowing like a drunk frat boy, and let the adults discuss things than listne to a single word you have to say?
"By offering arguments that are technically correct, but lead the reader to a surprisingly false conclusion, you actually do serious harm to your credibility and damage the cause you support."
But your excuse making is as bad, or worse.
What are the odds? I see you got modded up, but what, exactly are the odds? I don't see anything insightful at all about uninformed, morbid speculation totally devoid of facts.
I mean, you say the "odds aren't good" what does that mean? It's just one kind of indefinable slander that I've seen, and it's disgusting. It's really sleazy to say something like that, leave it unquantified, then use your baseless speculation as a point of argument.
If anything speaks to the silliness of these labels and the criteria or them, it's that someone whose father was from Africa can genuinely be argued to not be "African-American".
He obviously is, but your point that "African-American" normally doesn't refer to people who are actually from Africa recently, is also true.
Which just shoes how silly these labels are.
You'll dispute it and have it removed despite their presumed (and not stipulated) "unwillingness", as it is the reporting agencies who make the final decision and they are legally exposed if they don't.
They get nothing from the person who makes the false claim, and have no exposure if they choose to side with you and not list it. If they side against you and they're wrong, they can be sued.
So, the idea you're trying to sell us is that a company that has no incentive at all to side with a merchant who reports inaccurate data, will do so anyway, while refusing to correct that inaccurate data despite the fact that they will expose themselves to a lawsuit by doing so.
Logic, and experience, say that doesn't add up.
Everything I said there was accurate, i never insuklted or belittled anyone, and did nothing offensive of any kind.
WHy did you mod me troll?
A search of "flat rate ruled illegal" will give you all your answers. I'd link, but I think you should do it yourself, quite honestly.
In the US it's prorated (flat rate was ruled illegal recently, and I don't think most are using flat rate anyway), so it's not necessarily as much as you say. And honestly, I don't see why there shouldn't be a penalty for breaking a contract I agreed to. As far as the phone company, it sucks that they can do this, but what's your alternative? They're allowed to set their terms of service within reason, and I think this, while onerous, is within reason.
I hear what you're saying, but that just isn't good enough. The importance of the lesson to the Telecoms and the administration outweighs the quality you speak of. The price was too high.
Will it be because they're right, or becuse they're rich?
"Oh hell, you don't have a clue, do you?
The concern"
Sorry, I just found it funny that you told him he didn't have a clue then you act like that one thing is the reason for these warnings, especially when many of the carcinogens that are listed in California won't leach into anything.