As long as he didn't have a mortgage on his property and his customers paid him for his harvest, that is entirely possible.
How is he hurt if he has a mortgage? Banks having problems don't just automatically make people lose their properties. Now if people were foolish and had huge payments they couldn't afford (and never could have afforded) or no downpayment loans AND an ARM, yeah, they might be in trouble.
But no, if he -- like the majority of people -- had a standard fixed rate loan, he probably is just fine. Don't forget that inflation helps fixed debts (like a 30-year mortgage) become less important. I'm paying (eg) $1000/mon for my house now. In 25 years, is $1000 going to be as important to me (or, more importantly, is $1000 in 25 going to be worth as much as $1000 today)? I think it's an incredibly safe bet to say "no."
Businessmen always have to deal with the vagaries of business and payment. No reason to think that the last X years are any different from the Y years before them, in that regard.
During the late 1970's a lot of farmers lost everything, thanks to economic issues in banking (skyrocketing interest rates, double digit inflation, revenues not keeping up with costs)
Sure, which is actually largely the opposite of what we have right now -- tanking interest rates (Krugman recently propsed negative interest rates), high inflation for consumables, loan inflation for property/housing costs, and for farmers futures markets that are zipping upwards.
Umm... I had no ulterior motive. As I said, it wasn't clear to me why you said that apps which essentially collate the data shouldn't be used.
Ok, gotcha, though to be fair *I* didn't say that the apps shouldn't be used, I said that the OP's blanket statement about apps was incorrect with regards to what apps Apple was banning. Opinion-wise, I have an iPhone which means I've pretty much accepted that Apple's app store can ban whatever they want (though I do have jailbreak). I do have a problem with some apps being rejected, but I don't have a problem with these apps being rejected. If it was made actually illegal -- probably would have a problem with that.
Thanks for the info about checkpoints. I didn't realize that standards were so varied either.
FWIW, I've been stopped in a checkpoint twice in my life, and both times was there for all of 30-60 seconds. There were a lot of people pulled onto the side of the road looking inebriated though... I had no idea that some police departments publish their checkpoint locations in advance.
Obviously because a large public stink was raised. Politicians got involved as well as citizens. Apple's response is to ban a subset a DUI checkpoint tracking apps from the App Store. Could you really not figure that out or were you getting at something else?
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Are you being accurate when you claim that checkpoint locations must be made public (presumably in advance)--and especially for constitutional reasons? That was not my understanding, but I could be wrong. Do you have a source?
Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make a thing automatically good or bad, moral or immoral. Just because something is moral doesn't make it legal, nor does immorality make something illegal. These questions are perpendicular to each other.
Since you're grateful that (at least some) DUIs are publicly announced, out of curiosity, have you ever made us of that information before? ie, has it ever had the slightest impact on you or your decisions?
Arbitrary? Perhaps, but far less than you realize, since you obviously didn't RTFA. Try to be more informed before making blanket statements.
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question. Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
I live in the south. It's not just internationals resourcing here, but internal economic refugees. In one of the cities adjacent to where I live, I think roughly 40% of the population is from New York and New Jersey. It's rare to find actual southerners around in a lot of city centers and towns in some places!
The bad news is the refugees tend to bring their politics with them (though they do tend to be less extreme than those who chose to stay) and thus the cycles repeat.
The Pentagon -- while somewhat labyrinthine -- is actually fairly easy and fast to get around in. Once you get your bearings! For such a huge building, you don't generally have to spend a lot of time walking.
I once met someone who had been a manager at Bell Labs back in halcyon days. He had spent a good bit of his career in China, Japan, and Korea.
He said that when working in China, the Chinese made no bones about copying what Ma Bell was doing. He said at one point the Chinese govt (or some corporate proxy) had rented a floor in the building where AT&T had offices, and were completely conspicuous about breaking in, stealing data, planting moles. He was baffled as to why AT&T continued to do business there...
It baffles me to too... why so many American and European companies are so willing to quicken their demise for a few bucks today. On the other hand--and this is already happening--China is getting more expensive, labor codes are finally being updated, and the environment is no longer being quite so blatantly shat upon. Maybe we'll see some offshoring back to the US with shipping costs being what they are.
I have no idea where you are in life, but here's where I am. I loved starcraft1 and played the hell out of it in highschool and into college. Played with friends online, at lan parties, had a hangout channel, etc.
I'm in my late 20s now, married, and have a kid.
Playing games online with friends--real or internet-only--has moved far down my list of fun activities! It sounds boggling, but taking my son to the park is pretty much more fun than I've had playing video games online in years.
Not to say I don't like video games! I'm working my way through Fallout NV, have played through DA:O several times, am _still_ playing Civ:Revolution on my DS, etc. It's just the huge time investment to maintain online relationships, meet up with people online to play games (many of whom are in the same stage of life as I am now) becomes a lot more complicated! Playing Civ:Rev for 10 minutes, Dragon Age for 30 minutes, etc, is much easier, and as a result--for me personally--more fulfilling.
I, like the OP, will buy Starcraft 2 one day, and I'm sure I'll love the single player. Doubt I'll ever play the multiplayer. The "social" aspect is just completely irrelevant to me.
1) You're talking about United States House of Representatives seats. Each House district nationwide is supposed to have roughly the same number of people in it. So that CA-5 and NC-1 and LA-2 should represent roughly the same number of people. I believe currently districts are supposed to be about 600k people.
2) These districts have to be redistricted every 10 years (a few states only have 1 district, making it easy)
3) Then many states also have state districts. That is, my state has both a State House and a State Senate. Thus state legislative districts have to be drawn as well, and do not have to coincide at all with the US House districts.
4) In some states the legislature draws the lines. In some a non-partisan panel draws the lines. In some the legislature draws the line but the governor also has to approve. Some states (Florida pops to mind) have adopted rules that districts should--so far as possible--make sense geographically, so you don't get the absolute partisan monstrosities you find in states like North Carolina or Illinois (and many other places--those two are particularly egregious looking).
5) Finally, a large number of southern states are still be punished for civil rights abuses, and face extra scrutiny and rules when drafting districts. Rules that, for instance, require districts that are majority minority (primarily meaning majority black, increasingly majority hispanic).
One day I was driving along in Chicago flipping radio stations. I had a talk radio station on where the host (don't remember who -- somebody local I think) was discussing the positives of the fire department, how they put their lives on the line everyday, on a national comparative scale they performed their jobs very well, the department turned around lives and performed a great number of community outreach functions in the south side (the heavily minority side of town), etc.
I eventually flipped channels and listened to NPR. NPR at the same time was doing an investigative report into some scandal in the fire department (I don't remember all the details, I think there were allegations of racism in hiring practices). The NPR story discussed the dark side of the department, corruption, scandals, alleged racism, the need for drastic reform, and so forth.
Were both stories correct in the facts they presented? Absolutely. Would you have thought you were listening to stories about the same fire department if you hadn't known it? Probably not... Different aspects of the department were selected and highlighted and discussed.
Sure, this is one program, one day, one example. It's always stood out in my mind as an example of just how biased being unbiased can seem, in either direction. The sad reality is, there just isn't a uniform set of facts that are indisputable in just about any situation that news reports on. Hell, people are still arguing about nuances and intricacies of Roman politics, or the subaltern dynamics of British India or legal theory in the medieval Ottoman Empire. I would simply say, if you don't think NPR has a leftwing orientation in story selection, hosts, and general outlook, I would disagree. I even *like* a lot of shows on NPR but I don't think their news is just the final word in "the way things really are."
Always a great way to start a reply. You sound like someone I'd really like to meet!
A) pubs had blocked most appointees out of spite. Hundreds of position still no filled ot replaces.
I can't parse this and have no idea what you're attempting to say?
B) The EPA is still hurt from it's massive budget cuts from Bush
C) The pubs have blocked every effort to return funding to these agency.
So, according to you, what exactly is an example of a problem that derives directly from what you claim?
D) Wikileaks has nothing to do with this, you clearly didn't bother to read the link before mashing your keyboard in a vain attempt to hide your shame of the pubs.
You're quite right I was wrong about that, I had thought Wikileaks was hosting after the beekeeper got it. Let me refresh my sentiment -- I'm quite glad documents of this type are being leaked -- wikileaks style -- and hope that other government's dirty laundry will be aired as well.
Additionally, given your raft of spelling and grammar errors, I find it ironic you mention "mashing" of the keyboard. If you're going to criticize people for such things, don't be guilty of it yourself!
E) He was clearly referring to all the cuts dong for food safety. severely limiting funding for beef testing, and food regulation in general. Interesting note: E. Coli outbreaks where caused by using 'organic and natural' methods of cattle raising up stream of the spinach.
I'm having a little trouble parsing your message here as well, but yes, like I said, it is believed that wild boars transmitted e. coli from feces from one place to the spinach field.
. If you have been paying attention, you would notice the the leaks show some important info
Disagree, nothing remotely on the level of the US government leaks have been released. As somebody who worked in Intelligence for a time, there is a LOT of foreign government stuff out there, just waiting to hit the fans.
Obviously the democrats don't just sack and then re-staff these agencies. They are formed over time, and can be quickly destroyed. Bush administration was particularly virilent in its war on science, and removing intellectualism from interferring with business interests. Bush was very much a gut-instinct kind of guy.
You're both really wrong, and somewhat right. If you've ever worked in a government agency around election times, you know that that's EXACTLY what happens -- there is tremendous turnover. No, the "rank and file" generally do not turnover. This is why 8 years -- even what you hysterically claim is a "virilent [sic]" war on science and intellectualism -- is a blip. The scientists are by and by not changing, it's the administrators and agency heads. The ones who ultimately make all the decisions! I also think that if you're going to insulting someone for being anti-intellectual and dumb, you might want to not make egregious spelling mistakes.
If the democrats had more spine, they/would/ re-staff these organisations, and buy a TV channel that exclusively tells their side of the story - a homolouge to fox. But alas, democrats generally believe in being educated, and that means listening to others.
It's called NPR and PBS. If you had the slightest bit of experience in government, or knowledge of what goes on, you would know you're just absolutely wrong about how staffing works. You've got the elitism down though!
I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll
Let's see, in reality clothianidin was granted full approval this year -- April 2010! That's 4 years of a completely Democratically controlled congress and 2 years of a Democratic House+Senate+President. Most politically appointees from the Bush years are LONG gone by now. Turnover in agencies is incredible around election time. I'm very, very glad to see more stuff of this type appear on Wikileaks (though I wish some other government's dirty laundry would start showing up too). The troll part is being so blindly partisan. IMHO, it's that kind of super-polarized partisanship that helps lead to so many of our political problems.
Additionally, CCD is occurring around the globe--even in countries that don't use clothiandin.
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% [enO's-newswire.com] under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc
What on does the EPA have to do with E. coli outbreaks? Does the EPA really control wild boards running through spinach fields? Or indeed have ANYTHING to do with that situation?
Now, if he's being disingenuous, and he really *is* saying he's wrong in this matter, that's another story.
-- He's a young Republican with an agenda that he's forcing down everyone's throat since day one. From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."
I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level. --
A young republican with an agenda, who has been shoving his agenda down people's throats since day one, and pushing his conservative agenda to a national level. I get a shiver just reading that--sounds scary!
I think the inference is pretty clear! While I think you're pretty much right about ad hominem, I think you're wrong about the OP's intentions.
Yeah, I suck -- I completely misread the GP and thought he was asking where the government was authorized to pay for anything. So I said the wrong thing. I completely agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Sucks that my moronic post got modded up to +5.......
Well, we were getting ~20% annual increases several years back. Then last maybe 3 years were 6% increases. Yes, of course the companies are going to use this as an excuse. Doesn't change the impact on the budget? The insurance companies DO have to cover a lot of people who either didn't have coverage, couldn't get coverage, or were no longer on their parents plans (but now can be). I really don't see how this is debatable?
If people who have been denied coverage are now mandated to have insurance (and insurance can't say no), then doesn't it stand to reason that those people would be expensive to the insurance companies?
No. Attorney Generals are supposed to represent the state of their jurisdiction. They don't legislate, although they can litigate to contest legislation. I didn't elect the Atty General of my state-- others did-- and this Atty General DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS. As elected, he can indeed use his office for its legal purposes, and in this case, he did. Whine? That a major piece of legislation is derailed for the benefit of insurance companies? Yeah, I'll complain.
So what's different from how I described your viewpoint? I find the "well, I didn't vote for him...so..." meme to be one of the more noxious memes out there, and just more evidence of polarization. You can say he doesn't represent your views all you want, that's fine, but that doesn't in any way lessen the validity of his actions, nor does it have anything to do with the merits of this case. If you have a problem with the validity of his actions or the merits of this case, fine, talk about those. All this other stuff is irrelevant.
Generally, my visage of the term ad hominem points to the person, as in a personal attack. Like your nose is ugly. Not your views are ugly.
Your visage of the term? Not sure that means what you think it does:p
Irrelevant statement, and quite frankly a fairly stupid thing to say. If I say "President Obama isn't MY President" or "The healthcare bill doesn't represent my views in this matter" -- does that count for shit? No. It's just puerile pedantic whining. Unless your exact viewpoint is enacted into law by someone who is 100% with you on every matter, then of course they don't represent your viewpoints.
Unless appealed, the risk pool gets a leg kicked out, and it gets messier from there
Right, the White House has already said the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill. There WILL be an appeal. Like I said elsewhere, there was never one iota of doubt that the healthcare act would end up before the SCOTUS at some point.
Ad hominem means 'to the man', something personal.
Yes, that's obviously the literal meaning, but an ad hominem is attacking somebody for reason's not related to the matter at hand. In this case the OP even said "I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter," so yeah, I do think that fits the definition to a tee.
Relevance to the bill under consideration is what, precisely? Why didn't you negotiate a longer contract term when it was "20-30% less?"
Shouldn't it be obvious? The insurance companies are going to pass all their greatly increased costs on to consumers. Right? I mean, why wouldn't they? You can find many examples of this. There ARE tax credits that will become active in several years that looks like they will offset some of the impact for us, and obviously like always large companies who can swing political impact can get exempted from the health care act all they want...
I am not directly responsible for picking the plans, so it's possible there is some nuance here I'm missing, but my understanding is that regardless of plan or contract, costs can change (ie, go up) every year.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as he didn't have a mortgage on his property and his customers paid him for his harvest, that is entirely possible.
How is he hurt if he has a mortgage? Banks having problems don't just automatically make people lose their properties. Now if people were foolish and had huge payments they couldn't afford (and never could have afforded) or no downpayment loans AND an ARM, yeah, they might be in trouble.
But no, if he -- like the majority of people -- had a standard fixed rate loan, he probably is just fine. Don't forget that inflation helps fixed debts (like a 30-year mortgage) become less important. I'm paying (eg) $1000/mon for my house now. In 25 years, is $1000 going to be as important to me (or, more importantly, is $1000 in 25 going to be worth as much as $1000 today)? I think it's an incredibly safe bet to say "no."
Businessmen always have to deal with the vagaries of business and payment. No reason to think that the last X years are any different from the Y years before them, in that regard.
During the late 1970's a lot of farmers lost everything, thanks to economic issues in banking (skyrocketing interest rates, double digit inflation, revenues not keeping up with costs)
Sure, which is actually largely the opposite of what we have right now -- tanking interest rates (Krugman recently propsed negative interest rates), high inflation for consumables, loan inflation for property/housing costs, and for farmers futures markets that are zipping upwards.
It's a good time to be a farmer.
Really. Wonder how he's doing on that farm after the Bank Collapse
Probably quite well, since food prices and futures have risen solidly (since he's in Ohio if he's farming wheat, corn, orsoy -- ZW, ZC, ZS -- he's probably pretty happy).
I'm assuming neither you (if female) nor your wife (if you have one) have ever given birth?
Umm... I had no ulterior motive. As I said, it wasn't clear to me why you said that apps which essentially collate the data shouldn't be used.
Ok, gotcha, though to be fair *I* didn't say that the apps shouldn't be used, I said that the OP's blanket statement about apps was incorrect with regards to what apps Apple was banning. Opinion-wise, I have an iPhone which means I've pretty much accepted that Apple's app store can ban whatever they want (though I do have jailbreak). I do have a problem with some apps being rejected, but I don't have a problem with these apps being rejected. If it was made actually illegal -- probably would have a problem with that.
Thanks for the info about checkpoints. I didn't realize that standards were so varied either.
FWIW, I've been stopped in a checkpoint twice in my life, and both times was there for all of 30-60 seconds. There were a lot of people pulled onto the side of the road looking inebriated though... I had no idea that some police departments publish their checkpoint locations in advance.
Why is that?
Obviously because a large public stink was raised. Politicians got involved as well as citizens. Apple's response is to ban a subset a DUI checkpoint tracking apps from the App Store. Could you really not figure that out or were you getting at something else?
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Are you being accurate when you claim that checkpoint locations must be made public (presumably in advance)--and especially for constitutional reasons? That was not my understanding, but I could be wrong. Do you have a source?
Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make a thing automatically good or bad, moral or immoral. Just because something is moral doesn't make it legal, nor does immorality make something illegal. These questions are perpendicular to each other.
Since you're grateful that (at least some) DUIs are publicly announced, out of curiosity, have you ever made us of that information before? ie, has it ever had the slightest impact on you or your decisions?
Arbitrary? Perhaps, but far less than you realize, since you obviously didn't RTFA. Try to be more informed before making blanket statements.
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question. Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
I live in the south. It's not just internationals resourcing here, but internal economic refugees. In one of the cities adjacent to where I live, I think roughly 40% of the population is from New York and New Jersey. It's rare to find actual southerners around in a lot of city centers and towns in some places!
The bad news is the refugees tend to bring their politics with them (though they do tend to be less extreme than those who chose to stay) and thus the cycles repeat.
The Pentagon -- while somewhat labyrinthine -- is actually fairly easy and fast to get around in. Once you get your bearings! For such a huge building, you don't generally have to spend a lot of time walking.
This has been true for a long time.
I once met someone who had been a manager at Bell Labs back in halcyon days. He had spent a good bit of his career in China, Japan, and Korea.
He said that when working in China, the Chinese made no bones about copying what Ma Bell was doing. He said at one point the Chinese govt (or some corporate proxy) had rented a floor in the building where AT&T had offices, and were completely conspicuous about breaking in, stealing data, planting moles. He was baffled as to why AT&T continued to do business there...
It baffles me to too... why so many American and European companies are so willing to quicken their demise for a few bucks today. On the other hand--and this is already happening--China is getting more expensive, labor codes are finally being updated, and the environment is no longer being quite so blatantly shat upon. Maybe we'll see some offshoring back to the US with shipping costs being what they are.
That's an incorrect assumption.
I have no idea where you are in life, but here's where I am. I loved starcraft1 and played the hell out of it in highschool and into college. Played with friends online, at lan parties, had a hangout channel, etc.
I'm in my late 20s now, married, and have a kid.
Playing games online with friends--real or internet-only--has moved far down my list of fun activities! It sounds boggling, but taking my son to the park is pretty much more fun than I've had playing video games online in years.
Not to say I don't like video games! I'm working my way through Fallout NV, have played through DA:O several times, am _still_ playing Civ:Revolution on my DS, etc. It's just the huge time investment to maintain online relationships, meet up with people online to play games (many of whom are in the same stage of life as I am now) becomes a lot more complicated! Playing Civ:Rev for 10 minutes, Dragon Age for 30 minutes, etc, is much easier, and as a result--for me personally--more fulfilling.
I, like the OP, will buy Starcraft 2 one day, and I'm sure I'll love the single player. Doubt I'll ever play the multiplayer. The "social" aspect is just completely irrelevant to me.
Mostly dead on, a couple changes/additions.
1) You're talking about United States House of Representatives seats. Each House district nationwide is supposed to have roughly the same number of people in it. So that CA-5 and NC-1 and LA-2 should represent roughly the same number of people. I believe currently districts are supposed to be about 600k people.
2) These districts have to be redistricted every 10 years (a few states only have 1 district, making it easy)
3) Then many states also have state districts. That is, my state has both a State House and a State Senate. Thus state legislative districts have to be drawn as well, and do not have to coincide at all with the US House districts.
4) In some states the legislature draws the lines. In some a non-partisan panel draws the lines. In some the legislature draws the line but the governor also has to approve. Some states (Florida pops to mind) have adopted rules that districts should--so far as possible--make sense geographically, so you don't get the absolute partisan monstrosities you find in states like North Carolina or Illinois (and many other places--those two are particularly egregious looking).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=NC -- check out NC-12
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL -- check out IL-17
5) Finally, a large number of southern states are still be punished for civil rights abuses, and face extra scrutiny and rules when drafting districts. Rules that, for instance, require districts that are majority minority (primarily meaning majority black, increasingly majority hispanic).
One day I was driving along in Chicago flipping radio stations. I had a talk radio station on where the host (don't remember who -- somebody local I think) was discussing the positives of the fire department, how they put their lives on the line everyday, on a national comparative scale they performed their jobs very well, the department turned around lives and performed a great number of community outreach functions in the south side (the heavily minority side of town), etc.
I eventually flipped channels and listened to NPR. NPR at the same time was doing an investigative report into some scandal in the fire department (I don't remember all the details, I think there were allegations of racism in hiring practices). The NPR story discussed the dark side of the department, corruption, scandals, alleged racism, the need for drastic reform, and so forth.
Were both stories correct in the facts they presented? Absolutely. Would you have thought you were listening to stories about the same fire department if you hadn't known it? Probably not... Different aspects of the department were selected and highlighted and discussed.
Sure, this is one program, one day, one example. It's always stood out in my mind as an example of just how biased being unbiased can seem, in either direction. The sad reality is, there just isn't a uniform set of facts that are indisputable in just about any situation that news reports on. Hell, people are still arguing about nuances and intricacies of Roman politics, or the subaltern dynamics of British India or legal theory in the medieval Ottoman Empire. I would simply say, if you don't think NPR has a leftwing orientation in story selection, hosts, and general outlook, I would disagree. I even *like* a lot of shows on NPR but I don't think their news is just the final word in "the way things really are."
I forgot to post this--I thought you might find it interesting.
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm
wow, you are simple..or maybe just ignorant.
Always a great way to start a reply. You sound like someone I'd really like to meet!
A) pubs had blocked most appointees out of spite. Hundreds of position still no filled ot replaces.
I can't parse this and have no idea what you're attempting to say?
B) The EPA is still hurt from it's massive budget cuts from Bush
C) The pubs have blocked every effort to return funding to these agency.
So, according to you, what exactly is an example of a problem that derives directly from what you claim?
D) Wikileaks has nothing to do with this, you clearly didn't bother to read the link before mashing your keyboard in a vain attempt to hide your shame of the pubs.
You're quite right I was wrong about that, I had thought Wikileaks was hosting after the beekeeper got it. Let me refresh my sentiment -- I'm quite glad documents of this type are being leaked -- wikileaks style -- and hope that other government's dirty laundry will be aired as well.
Additionally, given your raft of spelling and grammar errors, I find it ironic you mention "mashing" of the keyboard. If you're going to criticize people for such things, don't be guilty of it yourself!
E) He was clearly referring to all the cuts dong for food safety. severely limiting funding for beef testing, and food regulation in general. Interesting note: E. Coli outbreaks where caused by using 'organic and natural' methods of cattle raising up stream of the spinach.
I'm having a little trouble parsing your message here as well, but yes, like I said, it is believed that wild boars transmitted e. coli from feces from one place to the spinach field.
. If you have been paying attention, you would notice the the leaks show some important info
Disagree, nothing remotely on the level of the US government leaks have been released. As somebody who worked in Intelligence for a time, there is a LOT of foreign government stuff out there, just waiting to hit the fans.
Obviously the democrats don't just sack and then re-staff these agencies. They are formed over time, and can be quickly destroyed. Bush administration was particularly virilent in its war on science, and removing intellectualism from interferring with business interests. Bush was very much a gut-instinct kind of guy.
You're both really wrong, and somewhat right. If you've ever worked in a government agency around election times, you know that that's EXACTLY what happens -- there is tremendous turnover. No, the "rank and file" generally do not turnover. This is why 8 years -- even what you hysterically claim is a "virilent [sic]" war on science and intellectualism -- is a blip. The scientists are by and by not changing, it's the administrators and agency heads. The ones who ultimately make all the decisions! I also think that if you're going to insulting someone for being anti-intellectual and dumb, you might want to not make egregious spelling mistakes.
If the democrats had more spine, they /would/ re-staff these organisations, and buy a TV channel that exclusively tells their side of the story - a homolouge to fox. But alas, democrats generally believe in being educated, and that means listening to others.
It's called NPR and PBS. If you had the slightest bit of experience in government, or knowledge of what goes on, you would know you're just absolutely wrong about how staffing works. You've got the elitism down though!
I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll
Let's see, in reality clothianidin was granted full approval this year -- April 2010! That's 4 years of a completely Democratically controlled congress and 2 years of a Democratic House+Senate+President. Most politically appointees from the Bush years are LONG gone by now. Turnover in agencies is incredible around election time. I'm very, very glad to see more stuff of this type appear on Wikileaks (though I wish some other government's dirty laundry would start showing up too). The troll part is being so blindly partisan. IMHO, it's that kind of super-polarized partisanship that helps lead to so many of our political problems.
Additionally, CCD is occurring around the globe--even in countries that don't use clothiandin.
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% [enO's-newswire.com] under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc
What on does the EPA have to do with E. coli outbreaks? Does the EPA really control wild boards running through spinach fields? Or indeed have ANYTHING to do with that situation?
Now, if he's being disingenuous, and he really *is* saying he's wrong in this matter, that's another story.
--
He's a young Republican with an agenda that he's forcing down everyone's throat since day one. From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."
I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level.
--
A young republican with an agenda, who has been shoving his agenda down people's throats since day one, and pushing his conservative agenda to a national level. I get a shiver just reading that--sounds scary!
I think the inference is pretty clear! While I think you're pretty much right about ad hominem, I think you're wrong about the OP's intentions.
Yeah, I suck -- I completely misread the GP and thought he was asking where the government was authorized to pay for anything. So I said the wrong thing. I completely agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Sucks that my moronic post got modded up to +5.......
Well, we were getting ~20% annual increases several years back. Then last maybe 3 years were 6% increases. Yes, of course the companies are going to use this as an excuse. Doesn't change the impact on the budget? The insurance companies DO have to cover a lot of people who either didn't have coverage, couldn't get coverage, or were no longer on their parents plans (but now can be). I really don't see how this is debatable?
If people who have been denied coverage are now mandated to have insurance (and insurance can't say no), then doesn't it stand to reason that those people would be expensive to the insurance companies?
No. Attorney Generals are supposed to represent the state of their jurisdiction. They don't legislate, although they can litigate to contest legislation. I didn't elect the Atty General of my state-- others did-- and this Atty General DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS. As elected, he can indeed use his office for its legal purposes, and in this case, he did. Whine? That a major piece of legislation is derailed for the benefit of insurance companies? Yeah, I'll complain.
So what's different from how I described your viewpoint? I find the "well, I didn't vote for him...so..." meme to be one of the more noxious memes out there, and just more evidence of polarization. You can say he doesn't represent your views all you want, that's fine, but that doesn't in any way lessen the validity of his actions, nor does it have anything to do with the merits of this case. If you have a problem with the validity of his actions or the merits of this case, fine, talk about those. All this other stuff is irrelevant.
Generally, my visage of the term ad hominem points to the person, as in a personal attack. Like your nose is ugly. Not your views are ugly.
Your visage of the term? Not sure that means what you think it does :p
They also don't represent my views in this matter
Irrelevant statement, and quite frankly a fairly stupid thing to say. If I say "President Obama isn't MY President" or "The healthcare bill doesn't represent my views in this matter" -- does that count for shit? No. It's just puerile pedantic whining. Unless your exact viewpoint is enacted into law by someone who is 100% with you on every matter, then of course they don't represent your viewpoints.
Unless appealed, the risk pool gets a leg kicked out, and it gets messier from there
Right, the White House has already said the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill. There WILL be an appeal. Like I said elsewhere, there was never one iota of doubt that the healthcare act would end up before the SCOTUS at some point.
Ad hominem means 'to the man', something personal.
Yes, that's obviously the literal meaning, but an ad hominem is attacking somebody for reason's not related to the matter at hand. In this case the OP even said "I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter," so yeah, I do think that fits the definition to a tee.
Yeah, I read the OP completely backwards, I agree with you.
So again, point out something in the Constitution that allows the Feds to force citizens to buy something, other than paying taxes.
You're totally right, I completely misread what the OP said. (I thought he was talking about the government being authorized to spend money)
My bad -- I agree individual mandate is not allowed.
Relevance to the bill under consideration is what, precisely? Why didn't you negotiate a longer contract term when it was "20-30% less?"
Shouldn't it be obvious? The insurance companies are going to pass all their greatly increased costs on to consumers. Right? I mean, why wouldn't they? You can find many examples of this. There ARE tax credits that will become active in several years that looks like they will offset some of the impact for us, and obviously like always large companies who can swing political impact can get exempted from the health care act all they want...
I am not directly responsible for picking the plans, so it's possible there is some nuance here I'm missing, but my understanding is that regardless of plan or contract, costs can change (ie, go up) every year.