Especially since many gated communities just have gates across the roads. Then 5 feet from the entrance the gate dwindles to some sort of easily climbable fence or nothing at all.
1) Immune suppressed kids can't get vaccines. The fact that you would even suggest this makes me think you don't know enough about vaccines to be making educated choices. 2) Vaccines are not medicine. They are generally some form of the disease that triggers an immune response that builds up antibodies without causing full blown symptoms of the disease. 3) Vaccines are a special case because they only work effectively if everyone uses them.
The federal government is really quite giving in this case. You don't have to get these vaccines if you don't want them. You just can't go to public schools and risk infecting everyone else. I think vaccines are a really good line to draw. It's something that only has significant value if everyone does it, and it's a ridiculously cheap solution that has hundreds of years of science behind it. If you think about it, almost all of the medical decisions doctors make are based upon significantly less scientific evidence. Vaccines make even drugs like aspirin look ridiculously under tested. It might do you good to research the history of vaccines.
But I'm not going to argue further with you. That is why I draw the Christian Scientist connection. The anti-vaccine crowd do not believe in vaccines. Scientific evidence is beside the point.
>>Actually most outbreaks of previously controlled disease are due to immigration (specifically illegal immigration) but yea lets just assume its the very small % of parents who dont vaccinate an 8 week old baby..
I didn't say that most outbreaks were caused by unvaccinated children. The majority of US children are still vaccinated currently. But that's just another check in the "Reasons to Immunize" column.
>>Why the hell is chicken pox mandatory it makes no earthly sense.
Because chicken pox is preventable and life-threatening to those who did not get it as children and the immuno-suppressed. A better question is "Why the hell should they have to die because you don't like the national vaccination policy?"
>> Medical decisions should be made by parents, period.
No. The fact that we have so many antibiotic resistant diseases explains why this is not true. Parents have already made far too many "medical decisions" to get their kids viral infections treated with antibiotics, thus killing people with the beautiful antibiotic resistant strains of diseases they've helped create. I don't really want your kid to die of a preventable disease just because your a libertarian. Nor do I want your unvaccinated kid to become a petri dish for new super-bugs that will eventually supercede my kids immunity. I see no difference between your belief in your ability to second guess the medical establishment and Christian Scientists treating their children through prayer.
No, it's best to do them early. When they're not done we see outbreaks quite quickly. This anti-vaccination movement has already led to several outbreaks of previously controlled diseases. The CDC publishes stats on this stuff. It's pretty easy for even a layman to follow.
I agree that kids probably don't need HPV at birth, but no one's advocating that. Even though Hepatitis-B, although most commonly transferred sexually or intravenously, is also often transferred among family members.
I think you're advocating for exactly what we already have. An expert board that constantly reviews what diseases we have vaccines for and when we should vaccinate for them. I don't think we should have a popular vote of parents or doctors deciding when they are scheduled.
From your description they aren't blowing money on R&D. They're unable to execute on the results of their R&D. Sounds like they need more visionary management, not less R&D.
Oh, you're right. I suppose you're marching into your office on Monday and demanding a pay cut? I mean after all, isn't it greedy of you to expect your company to pay you as much as they do? You're just an interchangeable widget. Goodness, why are you even expecting to be paid at all? You're a greedy SOB. Why don't you think about your company for once instead of yourself?
And you know that if you got paid less you'd pay less taxes, so there's an added benefit for you right there.
It's a win/win proposition. Demand a pay cut today! Heck, screw a pay cut, demand they outsource your job and lay you off. It's for the good of the company! They're not responsible for you, you're responsible for you, dammit!
IBM is gaming their stock price not competing. If they wanted o compete they would want a highly paid domestic workforce that would buy their customers products thus making their customers flush with cash and wanting to buy some more IBM consulting.
Has IBM announced consulting price-cuts to go along with their now lower wages? If not then they're really not competing. They're just trying to get a larger profit margin out of their current pricing scheme. We should start calling bull on this sort of thing. Let's change the headline to:
"IBM hopes to raise stock price by sending laid-off staff to other countries where the can rehire them for cheaper thus boosting their profit margins."
A subjective claim can be objectively wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that it is subjectively valid. The only way a subjective claim can be invalid is if the person making the claim is lying. Thus if I said that it was my subjective opinion that you were making a lot of really good points about education then I would be lying and thus my subjective opinion would be false. But you cannot in any way prove or disprove my subjective opinion. It's mine.
You are a proof for this. Even though I've provide objective proof for all of my statements, I have not changed your subjective view. Because it's subjective, and belonging only to you.
I could take my subjective view, use it as a scientific hypothesis, prove it false and chose to disregard my results. My original subjective view would still be valid, even though I had just proven it objectively false.
No. You're right. I don't have any scientific data to prove the subjective claim that public schools have better teachers. Because oddly enough you can't prove subjective claims with science. I could say that because I'm a fundamentalist Christian I think that a teacher with an 8th grade education who hasn't been tainted by the world is a better teacher than either the private or public sector can provide. You could not dispute my claim scientifically.
All I can provide you with is data about the test scores, the pay scale, education, and the hours worked. And in all those cases when student backgrounds are controlled for public schools come out on top. I cannot prove better. No one can prove better. That doesn't mean I don't have a stackload of data to back up my subjective claims. And you've got hunches and a claim that the work environment is "nicer".
The new report, by Teachers College's National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, finds that, after fully controlling for demographic differences between students in public and private schools, the presumed advantages of private schools disappear; in fact, in most cases public schools outperform private schools, on an apples-to-apples basis
So according to the US Department of Education if you did what I said you'd actually end up with a town full of even shittier private schools.
This is a tangent, but private schools don't get better teachers. They get better students which makes shitty teachers less obvious. If we took a city and made all of its schools private, and somehow made sure all the kids in the school district should attend, I'm quite sure they'd end up looking exactly the same as our current public schools.
"E.g. socialism doesn't work". You kind of just blasted your whole post at the end there. Just because you don't like socialism doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are plenty of socialist countries that work just fine, regardless of whether you want to live there. I'd prefer not to work under a military dictatorship, but I'm not about to suggest it doesn't work as a system of government.
Tumblr blogs are great for updating without using an actual web interface. We used them for a 24-hour play festival. We had a photographer emailing pictures in, we used twitter to add blog updates. We were going to roll our own, but tumblr had pretty much everything we needed.
What, so it's not a free market, because the American farming industry has used its clout to generate millions of dollars in federal subsidies and consolidate into fewer and fewer large agribusiness players that can more efficiently bilk billions of dollars from the federal government?
Are you saying that to have a free market you need anti-trust regulation to keep the market from being dominated by a few big players who lock out others through their effective use of government sponsorship and regulation?
Are you saying that if we had no farm subsidies that somehow things would be substantially different from how they are now? Giving farm subsidies might have actually helped a few small farms keep from having to sell out to companies like Cargill. It's puzzling to say that if there were not farm subsidies and the small farms had sold out to large conglomerates faster that Cargill would not exist.
It's interesting how many free-marketeers hate the Cargill type mega-corporations that come out of the free market (and would ultimately be even bigger if the market were "truly free"). The main reason that Cargill has competitors is that even they realize that there would be a public uproar if only one company controlled ALL of the world's food supply. That's where the free market ends up. Ultimately you will have one corporation dominating each field. Then they will start merging. Until they ultimately become a government, albeit without all that pesky democratic input.
Can you explain why that would NOT happen in a free market? And why you would want to live in a world dominated by a single giant corporation?
Listen, we've tried your way. It doesn't work. And constantly reiterating the same tired point about regulation = bad and government = bad is getting silly. The Republican/Libertarian idea of a free-market may be ideal. Ideal for defrauding most efficiently. Ideal for using limited resources the most quickly. Ideal for concentrating wealth into the fewest hands possible. Ideal for using government resources for the needs of a few limited corporations rather than the individual citizen. Ideal for running up debt with nothing to show for it.
Your ideas have failed. Let's talk again about burdensome regulation once we stop having to worry about melamine in our food. We're no where near burdensome regulation. We're in a period of fear brought about by a lack of regulation.
Actually, keep saying that government regulation is bad. You're helping to remind the majority of US citizens what they want the government to focus on.
Why exactly do you have indoor plumbing? That's a massive expensive! It ads to the cost of building a house. It adds to my taxes since the city has to maintain the sewer system. Indoor plumbing is something we just can't afford in the current economic climate. Let's all make a pact to only shit on the right side of the river and everything will be ok.
Universities are supposed to be for higher level learning. They're supposed to teach students how to think. If anything the problem is that we have too many people who think degree = job. Are you telling me that mechanical engineers are coming out of school ready to hop into a job where they take something from design through manufacturing? Of course not. Companies hire junior engineers who learn from senior engineers. I've talked to engineers in pretty much every field who talk about the day that they where surprised by actually using something they learned in school. Most of engineering is learning your domain and the specifics of it on the job.
Companies don't want vocational level students. There are plenty of those and most of the jobs have been outsourced. They essentially want Senior Engineers on day one. Since they can outsource junior engineers they don't hire any, and then they wonder why there aren't more senior engineers.
And then we have the place where CS is different. Thanks to Open Source and the Internet, companies can luck into hiring new Senior Engineers without any formal training. The kids they want to hire are going to have been working on open source projects in high school and college, and by working with Senior Developers online, they're going to be far better than anything a college can put out. I can't think of another field where you can hire a Senior (or at least mid-range) employee with no formal work experience.
I think there are two pretty easy ways to fix this.
1) Universities shouldn't become more vocational, but they should have a framework for practical work. Think about fine arts majors. Generally they have frequent recitals/performances/showings. They work with other students and faculty sponsors to work on their craft. There should be practicum classes where students work in groups to create specs, design, and implement programs. Theater majors don't take "Playing the Character Stanley in 'A Streetcar Named Desire' 101". It's expected that they can take abstract technique from an acting class and apply it to any character on stage. By the same token students should be expected to take theory from their programming classes and use it to program in an actual language. We don't need "Java Programming for the Banking Industry 101".
2) Corporations need to take some responsibility. In the 1960s companies were more local and so they took more of an active role in their towns. They wanted their schools to be good so they'd have good employees. They wanted to have as many well paid employees as possible so there would be more people to buy their products. There was the idea that being good to your employees was good for your business. Corporations need to get back to this. They need to realize that if they want to have really good Senior Developers, they need to put programs in place to mentor and train them. Sure a school can teach students not to use global variables, but best practices for the banking industry? Or the insurance industry? Take some responsibility for creating the workers you need. Very few people are going to research how to do multi-level transactions for fun.
He takes lots of photos of abandoned buildings in Detroit, and he makes it sound like the people stealing the copper are poor and homeless.
Why exactly would bored teenagers be risking death and the amount of work it takes to saw through pipes for a few bucks? Did you do manual labor because you were bored as a teenager?
Um... Cuban Missile Crisis? Just first thing that popped into my head. There have been a couple times in the past when conflict resolution skills have come in handy.
I don't leave my PS3 on when I'm not using it because the fans are too loud. That said I have two power strips under my TV cabinet.
One is always on and is buried in the back it contains: Cable Modem DVR
One has the button facing out and contains: TV PS3 PS2
When I'm not watching TV (and pretty much every night), I turn off the optional strip and leave on the always on one. Very simple and efficient way to use power. IKEA has two power strips in a bag for something like $7 right now. It's an easy step to take.
I love the fact that no one points out that even if she isn't the most gullible person on earth, her morals are still shockingly lacking. She's ready to help funnel millions out of a poor African country. Money that is almost surely going to be used for nefarious purposes. Kind of makes illegally selling arms to African nations seem moral.
The author takes a lot of swipes at Liberal and Fine Arts. I'm quite happy with BA in Theater. I own a house, have no college debt, and my wife is able to stay at home with our kids.
Too many people believe they are buying a career with their degree. They see their Engineering degree as a $60k bond investment that will pay off at $100k/year. But education is much more like a stock investment. There's a high degree of risk. There's a degree of luck. But ultimately if you get a degree that educates you, you will find a job. The one thing that employers and universities can't do is teach you to think. So in the long run it might make more sense for employers to train a smart liberal arts major to program than to get an expensive mediocre CS major who got their degree for the paycheck.
They also heavily favored Palin over Biden. So obviously they have a conservative bias. Or perhaps they just liked reporting on new and interesting people, rather than boring old white men. I guess it's easy to talk about that MSM liberal bias. But my guess is that Fox News reported more on Obama/Palin than McCain/Biden also.
No. I also called you a troll. You seem to want a chronological timeline of what Obama will do in advance of his presidency, with legislation included. I can't debate the future with you. I'm not a psychic. You should also take a gander at John McCain's issue site:
I think you'll find that it is written at the same depth (I would contend it actually explains less, but that might be my political leanings). Here's Ron Paul's website for the sake of completeness:
Slashdot Mirror
Especially since many gated communities just have gates across the roads. Then 5 feet from the entrance the gate dwindles to some sort of easily climbable fence or nothing at all.
1) Immune suppressed kids can't get vaccines. The fact that you would even suggest this makes me think you don't know enough about vaccines to be making educated choices.
2) Vaccines are not medicine. They are generally some form of the disease that triggers an immune response that builds up antibodies without causing full blown symptoms of the disease.
3) Vaccines are a special case because they only work effectively if everyone uses them.
The federal government is really quite giving in this case. You don't have to get these vaccines if you don't want them. You just can't go to public schools and risk infecting everyone else. I think vaccines are a really good line to draw. It's something that only has significant value if everyone does it, and it's a ridiculously cheap solution that has hundreds of years of science behind it. If you think about it, almost all of the medical decisions doctors make are based upon significantly less scientific evidence. Vaccines make even drugs like aspirin look ridiculously under tested. It might do you good to research the history of vaccines.
But I'm not going to argue further with you. That is why I draw the Christian Scientist connection. The anti-vaccine crowd do not believe in vaccines. Scientific evidence is beside the point.
>>Actually most outbreaks of previously controlled disease are due to immigration (specifically illegal immigration) but yea lets just assume its the very small % of parents who dont vaccinate an 8 week old baby..
I didn't say that most outbreaks were caused by unvaccinated children. The majority of US children are still vaccinated currently. But that's just another check in the "Reasons to Immunize" column.
>>Why the hell is chicken pox mandatory it makes no earthly sense.
Because chicken pox is preventable and life-threatening to those who did not get it as children and the immuno-suppressed. A better question is "Why the hell should they have to die because you don't like the national vaccination policy?"
>> Medical decisions should be made by parents, period.
No. The fact that we have so many antibiotic resistant diseases explains why this is not true. Parents have already made far too many "medical decisions" to get their kids viral infections treated with antibiotics, thus killing people with the beautiful antibiotic resistant strains of diseases they've helped create. I don't really want your kid to die of a preventable disease just because your a libertarian. Nor do I want your unvaccinated kid to become a petri dish for new super-bugs that will eventually supercede my kids immunity. I see no difference between your belief in your ability to second guess the medical establishment and Christian Scientists treating their children through prayer.
No, it's best to do them early. When they're not done we see outbreaks quite quickly. This anti-vaccination movement has already led to several outbreaks of previously controlled diseases. The CDC publishes stats on this stuff. It's pretty easy for even a layman to follow.
I agree that kids probably don't need HPV at birth, but no one's advocating that. Even though Hepatitis-B, although most commonly transferred sexually or intravenously, is also often transferred among family members.
I think you're advocating for exactly what we already have. An expert board that constantly reviews what diseases we have vaccines for and when we should vaccinate for them. I don't think we should have a popular vote of parents or doctors deciding when they are scheduled.
From your description they aren't blowing money on R&D. They're unable to execute on the results of their R&D. Sounds like they need more visionary management, not less R&D.
Oh, you're right. I suppose you're marching into your office on Monday and demanding a pay cut? I mean after all, isn't it greedy of you to expect your company to pay you as much as they do? You're just an interchangeable widget. Goodness, why are you even expecting to be paid at all? You're a greedy SOB. Why don't you think about your company for once instead of yourself?
And you know that if you got paid less you'd pay less taxes, so there's an added benefit for you right there.
It's a win/win proposition. Demand a pay cut today! Heck, screw a pay cut, demand they outsource your job and lay you off. It's for the good of the company! They're not responsible for you, you're responsible for you, dammit!
IBM is gaming their stock price not competing. If they wanted o compete they would want a highly paid domestic workforce that would buy their customers products thus making their customers flush with cash and wanting to buy some more IBM consulting.
Has IBM announced consulting price-cuts to go along with their now lower wages? If not then they're really not competing. They're just trying to get a larger profit margin out of their current pricing scheme. We should start calling bull on this sort of thing. Let's change the headline to:
"IBM hopes to raise stock price by sending laid-off staff to other countries where the can rehire them for cheaper thus boosting their profit margins."
A subjective claim can be objectively wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that it is subjectively valid. The only way a subjective claim can be invalid is if the person making the claim is lying. Thus if I said that it was my subjective opinion that you were making a lot of really good points about education then I would be lying and thus my subjective opinion would be false. But you cannot in any way prove or disprove my subjective opinion. It's mine.
You are a proof for this. Even though I've provide objective proof for all of my statements, I have not changed your subjective view. Because it's subjective, and belonging only to you.
I could take my subjective view, use it as a scientific hypothesis, prove it false and chose to disregard my results. My original subjective view would still be valid, even though I had just proven it objectively false.
No. You're right. I don't have any scientific data to prove the subjective claim that public schools have better teachers. Because oddly enough you can't prove subjective claims with science. I could say that because I'm a fundamentalist Christian I think that a teacher with an 8th grade education who hasn't been tainted by the world is a better teacher than either the private or public sector can provide. You could not dispute my claim scientifically.
All I can provide you with is data about the test scores, the pay scale, education, and the hours worked. And in all those cases when student backgrounds are controlled for public schools come out on top. I cannot prove better. No one can prove better. That doesn't mean I don't have a stackload of data to back up my subjective claims. And you've got hunches and a claim that the work environment is "nicer".
Some data?
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=private+school+teachers+level+of+education
Actually I was wrong:
http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/insight/pvt_school/
So according to the US Department of Education if you did what I said you'd actually end up with a town full of even shittier private schools.
This is a tangent, but private schools don't get better teachers. They get better students which makes shitty teachers less obvious. If we took a city and made all of its schools private, and somehow made sure all the kids in the school district should attend, I'm quite sure they'd end up looking exactly the same as our current public schools.
"E.g. socialism doesn't work". You kind of just blasted your whole post at the end there. Just because you don't like socialism doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are plenty of socialist countries that work just fine, regardless of whether you want to live there. I'd prefer not to work under a military dictatorship, but I'm not about to suggest it doesn't work as a system of government.
Tumblr blogs are great for updating without using an actual web interface. We used them for a 24-hour play festival. We had a photographer emailing pictures in, we used twitter to add blog updates. We were going to roll our own, but tumblr had pretty much everything we needed.
What, so it's not a free market, because the American farming industry has used its clout to generate millions of dollars in federal subsidies and consolidate into fewer and fewer large agribusiness players that can more efficiently bilk billions of dollars from the federal government?
Are you saying that to have a free market you need anti-trust regulation to keep the market from being dominated by a few big players who lock out others through their effective use of government sponsorship and regulation?
Are you saying that if we had no farm subsidies that somehow things would be substantially different from how they are now? Giving farm subsidies might have actually helped a few small farms keep from having to sell out to companies like Cargill. It's puzzling to say that if there were not farm subsidies and the small farms had sold out to large conglomerates faster that Cargill would not exist.
It's interesting how many free-marketeers hate the Cargill type mega-corporations that come out of the free market (and would ultimately be even bigger if the market were "truly free"). The main reason that Cargill has competitors is that even they realize that there would be a public uproar if only one company controlled ALL of the world's food supply. That's where the free market ends up. Ultimately you will have one corporation dominating each field. Then they will start merging. Until they ultimately become a government, albeit without all that pesky democratic input.
Can you explain why that would NOT happen in a free market? And why you would want to live in a world dominated by a single giant corporation?
Listen, we've tried your way. It doesn't work. And constantly reiterating the same tired point about regulation = bad and government = bad is getting silly. The Republican/Libertarian idea of a free-market may be ideal. Ideal for defrauding most efficiently. Ideal for using limited resources the most quickly. Ideal for concentrating wealth into the fewest hands possible. Ideal for using government resources for the needs of a few limited corporations rather than the individual citizen. Ideal for running up debt with nothing to show for it.
Your ideas have failed. Let's talk again about burdensome regulation once we stop having to worry about melamine in our food. We're no where near burdensome regulation. We're in a period of fear brought about by a lack of regulation.
Actually, keep saying that government regulation is bad. You're helping to remind the majority of US citizens what they want the government to focus on.
Why exactly do you have indoor plumbing? That's a massive expensive! It ads to the cost of building a house. It adds to my taxes since the city has to maintain the sewer system. Indoor plumbing is something we just can't afford in the current economic climate. Let's all make a pact to only shit on the right side of the river and everything will be ok.
Universities are supposed to be for higher level learning. They're supposed to teach students how to think. If anything the problem is that we have too many people who think degree = job. Are you telling me that mechanical engineers are coming out of school ready to hop into a job where they take something from design through manufacturing? Of course not. Companies hire junior engineers who learn from senior engineers. I've talked to engineers in pretty much every field who talk about the day that they where surprised by actually using something they learned in school. Most of engineering is learning your domain and the specifics of it on the job.
Companies don't want vocational level students. There are plenty of those and most of the jobs have been outsourced. They essentially want Senior Engineers on day one. Since they can outsource junior engineers they don't hire any, and then they wonder why there aren't more senior engineers.
And then we have the place where CS is different. Thanks to Open Source and the Internet, companies can luck into hiring new Senior Engineers without any formal training. The kids they want to hire are going to have been working on open source projects in high school and college, and by working with Senior Developers online, they're going to be far better than anything a college can put out. I can't think of another field where you can hire a Senior (or at least mid-range) employee with no formal work experience.
I think there are two pretty easy ways to fix this.
1) Universities shouldn't become more vocational, but they should have a framework for practical work. Think about fine arts majors. Generally they have frequent recitals/performances/showings. They work with other students and faculty sponsors to work on their craft. There should be practicum classes where students work in groups to create specs, design, and implement programs. Theater majors don't take "Playing the Character Stanley in 'A Streetcar Named Desire' 101". It's expected that they can take abstract technique from an acting class and apply it to any character on stage. By the same token students should be expected to take theory from their programming classes and use it to program in an actual language. We don't need "Java Programming for the Banking Industry 101".
2) Corporations need to take some responsibility. In the 1960s companies were more local and so they took more of an active role in their towns. They wanted their schools to be good so they'd have good employees. They wanted to have as many well paid employees as possible so there would be more people to buy their products. There was the idea that being good to your employees was good for your business. Corporations need to get back to this. They need to realize that if they want to have really good Senior Developers, they need to put programs in place to mentor and train them. Sure a school can teach students not to use global variables, but best practices for the banking industry? Or the insurance industry? Take some responsibility for creating the workers you need. Very few people are going to research how to do multi-level transactions for fun.
What? Bored teens? What do you base this on? You should check out:
http://www.sweet-juniper.com/
He takes lots of photos of abandoned buildings in Detroit, and he makes it sound like the people stealing the copper are poor and homeless.
Why exactly would bored teenagers be risking death and the amount of work it takes to saw through pipes for a few bucks? Did you do manual labor because you were bored as a teenager?
Um... Cuban Missile Crisis? Just first thing that popped into my head. There have been a couple times in the past when conflict resolution skills have come in handy.
I don't leave my PS3 on when I'm not using it because the fans are too loud. That said I have two power strips under my TV cabinet.
One is always on and is buried in the back it contains:
Cable Modem
DVR
One has the button facing out and contains:
TV
PS3
PS2
When I'm not watching TV (and pretty much every night), I turn off the optional strip and leave on the always on one. Very simple and efficient way to use power. IKEA has two power strips in a bag for something like $7 right now. It's an easy step to take.
I love the fact that no one points out that even if she isn't the most gullible person on earth, her morals are still shockingly lacking. She's ready to help funnel millions out of a poor African country. Money that is almost surely going to be used for nefarious purposes. Kind of makes illegally selling arms to African nations seem moral.
The author takes a lot of swipes at Liberal and Fine Arts. I'm quite happy with BA in Theater. I own a house, have no college debt, and my wife is able to stay at home with our kids.
Too many people believe they are buying a career with their degree. They see their Engineering degree as a $60k bond investment that will pay off at $100k/year. But education is much more like a stock investment. There's a high degree of risk. There's a degree of luck. But ultimately if you get a degree that educates you, you will find a job. The one thing that employers and universities can't do is teach you to think. So in the long run it might make more sense for employers to train a smart liberal arts major to program than to get an expensive mediocre CS major who got their degree for the paycheck.
They also heavily favored Palin over Biden. So obviously they have a conservative bias. Or perhaps they just liked reporting on new and interesting people, rather than boring old white men.
I guess it's easy to talk about that MSM liberal bias. But my guess is that Fox News reported more on Obama/Palin than McCain/Biden also.
No. I also called you a troll. You seem to want a chronological timeline of what Obama will do in advance of his presidency, with legislation included. I can't debate the future with you. I'm not a psychic. You should also take a gander at John McCain's issue site:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
I think you'll find that it is written at the same depth (I would contend it actually explains less, but that might be my political leanings). Here's Ron Paul's website for the sake of completeness:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/
Yup, I thought you were a troll. I could explain to you how our government works. I could explain to you how diplomacy works. But what's the point.
"Nothing of substance just words not how I will accomplish this nothing."
Indeed.