It did, but not in the way this guy thinks it should have.
I'm "the guy." I just happen to be a user here, too.:)
By law the money needed to go to pay down our public debt first, which is real debt despite this guys claims.
If you read my article you'll find I didn't contradict that. I didn't say the public debt didn't go down, but every single year the intergovernmental debt went up more. If the public debt had gone down more than the intergovernmental debt had gone up, that'd have been something. Unfortunately it wasn't the case.
Even republican political strategist Karl Rove says that the McCain campaign may be going over the top.
He said the same about the Obama campaign. Not that you'll see that as part of most headlines in the mainstream media; if you're lucky you'll find it mentioned in passing in the second-to-last paragraph of the article.
I'd say that counting words like "hate" or "enemy" are bogus because they can greatly vary their meaning on context. If I say "You're my enemy" then that's negatively charged while if I say, "You're not my enemy" then it most definitely isn't.
I can see things like the I/we compariso and "go" and "going" to be possible indicators, though. And hopefully the folks that made this algorithm either had some training in psychology or speech analysis, or worked with someone who did. Otherwise it's just bogus.
The truth is, when candidates--especially presidential candidates--speak of what they're going to do, especially what we're going to do, I would agree it's usually spin. Or wishful thinking. There are very few things a president can really unilaterally decide to do. To promise most of the things presidential candidates promise is to take advantage of the dreams of their supporters since most of what they promise doesn't really depend on the president.
I wish presidential candidates would just state their position on the issues and maybe have some debates on the merits of those positions. Then let us decide. Because when anyone promises a bucketload of changes or policies or whatever, it's just nonsense. Tell us what you believe and let us decide if we want someone like you in the White House.
I believe in freedom of speech and the right to sell a product, but it should be a criminal act to offer up a steaming pile like this for sale to the public.
If offering up a steaming pile for sale to the public was criminal, the Democratic party would cease to exist.
Politicians can avoid lying by admissions--and really sound a lot more convincing--if they at least mention in passing the facts they are admitting.
Example:
"The response to Katrina was all Bush's and FEMA's fault." -- Comes off very absurd because it ignores the failures of local government entirely.
"Although New Orleans and Louisiana's response to Katrina was inadequate, FEMA and Bush had some shortcomings as well." -- Comes off as significantly more honest, less polarizing, and lets us get to the issues and maybe even discuss them rationally.
Unfortunately, lying by omission is one of the most common lies of politicians. It's also extremely polarizing. Quite unfortunate.
It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.
That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.
But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.
I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.
People need to think rationally about this instead of being paranoid. It's entirely possible the NSA or others have this kind of ability, but it's not going to happen through a host of some number of 3,000 obscure wireless companies. As you increase the number of organizations you're dealing with, the risk of exposure reaches 100%.
How about instead saying "This theory is bumpkis, and here is why."
I wish it were that simple. But it doesn't happen for the same reason that there's no such thing as a "clean" political campaign in the US. Negative campaigning works and most people aren't interested enough to digest facts.
Global warming is the "in" thing because enough of the public has been convinced of the supposed dangers, and because the global warming fearmongers have so demonized the skeptics that anything that contradicts global warming isn't even considered a possibility. It's disgusting.
And politicians love global warming because it lets them pass political measures with very little debate. Global warming is basically the left's "terrorism." I mean that in that the right can use terrorism as a red herring to pass a bunch of policies that would otherwise fall flat on its face, and global warming provides the same ability to liberals.
How about we eliminate both terrorism and global warming from politics completely so we can actually spend our time on something productive?
Today, the increased carbon dioxide causes a larger forcing, so much so that we will not have another ice age with so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...
Uhm... good! Am I to take it you are pro-ice age? I'd rather have sea level rise a few dozen feet than half a half mile slab of ice come rolling through town.
Off-topic, but no, it did not give a few billion dollars to the upper class today. The upper class with stock in those companies got pretty much screwed while the bailout keeps it possible for the non-rich to buy a house.
If the problem is the temperature of the earth is increasing, then we can either try to reduce our CO2 production or we can increase reflectivity of clouds. Either one--or a combination--in theory would fix the problem.
The interesting to see here are the people that are suggesting that this would be a band-aid or doesn't address the underlying problem. The underlying problem is TEMPERATURE. If this really worked then I see NO PROBLEM with this being a final solution.
Those that see a possible way to keep the temperature from increasing but are against it because it doesn't allow them to argue for reduced CO2 production are revealing themselves as political animals hell-bent on a policy rather than people concerned about the environment.
Pure genius. Take a system you don't really understand, but depend on for living, and drastically modify a variable to see what happens.
Right. Which is why I'm against modifying the CO2 variable. Who knows what will happen if we suddenly and drastically reduce it. Plants will die, they'll produce less O2, and then animals will die... and those that live will be in a world where dogs and cats are living together. MASS HYSTERIA!
Seriously, more people need to understand that we DON'T understand the system well enough to say that reducing CO2 is definitely the cure-all to our ills.
If you think that the accusation of fraud being the reason Bush won in 2000 and 2004 is an insignificant minority of the Democratic party, you aren't paying attention.
I think Obama is very possibly toast because: 1) Palin is a real outsider and considered a maverick in her state. Like McCain is considered a maverick. 2) Both McCain and Palin have gone against their party, so that is an independent streak that many independents will like. 3) Palin has more experience, as candidate for VP, than Obama does as candidate for president and that contrast does not benefit Obama. 4) As long as Democrats keep harping in her supposed inexperience, they inadvertently draw attention to the inexperience of their own presidential candidate.
I'm curious what your excuse/justification will be in November, should your favored candidate lose. My money is on you forgetting that you even made this rant.
I won't forget it. I even made some of the same points on my permanent blog: letxa.com.
If they lose? I'll be disappointed but I won't make excuses. If they lose, it's because voters wanted Obama. I won't be happy, but I'll accept the results. There are some upsides to an Obama presidency and I say that even as a Republican.
But I suspect we won't be seeing an Obama presidency. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Me: I am a Republican, always have been.
You: Such declarations get bandied about so much that one hardly bats an eye; in my opinion, though, you've just lowered yourself more than anyone else here could.
And responses such as that are more a cause of divisiveness than Bush ever was or will be.
I'm a Republican because I believe in conservative values and will rationally defend them when required. I don't follow blindly but with thought and conviction. There's nothing lowly about that. There are many people that disagree with me but I don't consider them lowly or stupid as long as they can rationally defend their position.
I only look down on people that follow blindly and aren't able to defend their positions. There's nothing respectable about that.
I like McCaain, but from what little I've learned so far, this VP selection pushes me away from him a little.
I find that strange. It seems that just about anything you could find out about this person would push you further away from the Democratic candidate for president.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm "the guy." I just happen to be a user here, too. :)
If you read my article you'll find I didn't contradict that. I didn't say the public debt didn't go down, but every single year the intergovernmental debt went up more. If the public debt had gone down more than the intergovernmental debt had gone up, that'd have been something. Unfortunately it wasn't the case.
It's all that matters if you're trying to deceive people into thinking Clinton had a surplus.
If the intent is to deceive, it's a lie. Spinning might not utter statements that are false, but the deceptive intention still makes it a lie.
He said the same about the Obama campaign. Not that you'll see that as part of most headlines in the mainstream media; if you're lucky you'll find it mentioned in passing in the second-to-last paragraph of the article.
I'd say that counting words like "hate" or "enemy" are bogus because they can greatly vary their meaning on context. If I say "You're my enemy" then that's negatively charged while if I say, "You're not my enemy" then it most definitely isn't.
I can see things like the I/we compariso and "go" and "going" to be possible indicators, though. And hopefully the folks that made this algorithm either had some training in psychology or speech analysis, or worked with someone who did. Otherwise it's just bogus.
The truth is, when candidates--especially presidential candidates--speak of what they're going to do, especially what we're going to do, I would agree it's usually spin. Or wishful thinking. There are very few things a president can really unilaterally decide to do. To promise most of the things presidential candidates promise is to take advantage of the dreams of their supporters since most of what they promise doesn't really depend on the president.
I wish presidential candidates would just state their position on the issues and maybe have some debates on the merits of those positions. Then let us decide. Because when anyone promises a bucketload of changes or policies or whatever, it's just nonsense. Tell us what you believe and let us decide if we want someone like you in the White House.
If offering up a steaming pile for sale to the public was criminal, the Democratic party would cease to exist.
:)
Very true.
Politicians can avoid lying by admissions--and really sound a lot more convincing--if they at least mention in passing the facts they are admitting.
Example:
"The response to Katrina was all Bush's and FEMA's fault." -- Comes off very absurd because it ignores the failures of local government entirely.
"Although New Orleans and Louisiana's response to Katrina was inadequate, FEMA and Bush had some shortcomings as well." -- Comes off as significantly more honest, less polarizing, and lets us get to the issues and maybe even discuss them rationally.
Unfortunately, lying by omission is one of the most common lies of politicians. It's also extremely polarizing. Quite unfortunate.
That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.
But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.
I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.
"I need some machine to tell me that?" War Games
People need to think rationally about this instead of being paranoid. It's entirely possible the NSA or others have this kind of ability, but it's not going to happen through a host of some number of 3,000 obscure wireless companies. As you increase the number of organizations you're dealing with, the risk of exposure reaches 100%.
I wish it were that simple. But it doesn't happen for the same reason that there's no such thing as a "clean" political campaign in the US. Negative campaigning works and most people aren't interested enough to digest facts.
Global warming is the "in" thing because enough of the public has been convinced of the supposed dangers, and because the global warming fearmongers have so demonized the skeptics that anything that contradicts global warming isn't even considered a possibility. It's disgusting.
And politicians love global warming because it lets them pass political measures with very little debate. Global warming is basically the left's "terrorism." I mean that in that the right can use terrorism as a red herring to pass a bunch of policies that would otherwise fall flat on its face, and global warming provides the same ability to liberals.
How about we eliminate both terrorism and global warming from politics completely so we can actually spend our time on something productive?
Then move. There is quite a bit of habitable land that is significantly higher than sea level.
I don't think you're quite grasping the meaning of Newton's 2nd Law.
Oh good, that makes me feel so much more confident.
Uhm... good! Am I to take it you are pro-ice age? I'd rather have sea level rise a few dozen feet than half a half mile slab of ice come rolling through town.
True... But it assumes we know that a lower temperature is better and that we should try preventing it from increasing. We don't even know that.
Off-topic, but no, it did not give a few billion dollars to the upper class today. The upper class with stock in those companies got pretty much screwed while the bailout keeps it possible for the non-rich to buy a house.
Because it has in the past?
It doesn't. They are two different issues for a reason.
If the problem is the temperature of the earth is increasing, then we can either try to reduce our CO2 production or we can increase reflectivity of clouds. Either one--or a combination--in theory would fix the problem.
The interesting to see here are the people that are suggesting that this would be a band-aid or doesn't address the underlying problem. The underlying problem is TEMPERATURE. If this really worked then I see NO PROBLEM with this being a final solution.
Those that see a possible way to keep the temperature from increasing but are against it because it doesn't allow them to argue for reduced CO2 production are revealing themselves as political animals hell-bent on a policy rather than people concerned about the environment.
Right. Which is why I'm against modifying the CO2 variable. Who knows what will happen if we suddenly and drastically reduce it. Plants will die, they'll produce less O2, and then animals will die... and those that live will be in a world where dogs and cats are living together. MASS HYSTERIA!
Seriously, more people need to understand that we DON'T understand the system well enough to say that reducing CO2 is definitely the cure-all to our ills.
If you think that the accusation of fraud being the reason Bush won in 2000 and 2004 is an insignificant minority of the Democratic party, you aren't paying attention.
I think Obama is very possibly toast because: 1) Palin is a real outsider and considered a maverick in her state. Like McCain is considered a maverick. 2) Both McCain and Palin have gone against their party, so that is an independent streak that many independents will like. 3) Palin has more experience, as candidate for VP, than Obama does as candidate for president and that contrast does not benefit Obama. 4) As long as Democrats keep harping in her supposed inexperience, they inadvertently draw attention to the inexperience of their own presidential candidate.
Yes, just my opinion.
I won't forget it. I even made some of the same points on my permanent blog: letxa.com.
If they lose? I'll be disappointed but I won't make excuses. If they lose, it's because voters wanted Obama. I won't be happy, but I'll accept the results. There are some upsides to an Obama presidency and I say that even as a Republican.
But I suspect we won't be seeing an Obama presidency. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
And responses such as that are more a cause of divisiveness than Bush ever was or will be.
I'm a Republican because I believe in conservative values and will rationally defend them when required. I don't follow blindly but with thought and conviction. There's nothing lowly about that. There are many people that disagree with me but I don't consider them lowly or stupid as long as they can rationally defend their position.
I only look down on people that follow blindly and aren't able to defend their positions. There's nothing respectable about that.
I find that strange. It seems that just about anything you could find out about this person would push you further away from the Democratic candidate for president.