NoScript does nothing whatsoever to restrict extensions or plugins. Nor would it even possible for it to do so without a major redesign of Firefox's extension system including the introduction of a security model with trust levels.
There's nothing wrong with installing a program in the Application directory; it's pretty much the norm on Windows for per-user installations. Think of it as equivalent to ~/bin on Unix systems. Of course that doesn't fit in well for enterprise environments, but Google does provide a pack installer for managed systems, which installs under "Program Files" and lets you disable auto-updates. And while the current version of Chrome is lacking other enterprise features, the next version will have full support for GPO configuration, Admin templates, and all the other things you'd expect in an enterprise.
As for your absurd claim that per-user installations are somehow a security vulnerability, you're going to have to provide something to back that up. Because I've spent about 15 years in the information security field I can't even get close to a rationale for that one.
Actually, Tavis specifically suggested disabling the hcp: protocol handler. His statement on the hotfix was:
In the unlikely event that you heavily rely on the use of hcp://, I have created an unofficial (temporary) hotfix. You may use it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. Of course, you should only use it as a last resort, carefully test the patch and make sure you understand what it does (full source code is included). It may be necessary to modify it to fit your needs.
MS are the ones focusing on the hotfix and claiming it's flawed without providing an explanation. MS are also the ones desperately trying to frame this as Google, when it was Tavis operating independently on his own time.
I'm not saying I agree with what Tavis did, but MS' shady response certainly isn't making me less inclined to side with Tavis.
Actually, he recommended against using the hotfix, and instead suggested disabling the protocol handler. Speaking of, is anyone aware of the hcp: protocol being used for anything other than security exploits? Because in its 10 years of existence I've never once seen it used legitimately, but I've repeatedly seen it expose security vulnerabilities.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Google. Google has a strict policy that what you do on your own time and dime is yours. That's why they have a lot of really good security people there who all conduct independent research that's completely unaffiliated with Google. So, to be very clear, Tavis did this entirely on his own. MS mis-framing it as Google (and Slashdot buying it hook line and sinker) is just a smokescreen. Sorry, but you've been suckered.
You might want to pick a subject you know a little about before pontificating. Tavis Ormandy has reported dozens of critical security vulnerabilities to Microsoft and others. Just search for "Tavis Ormandy Windows kernel vulnerability" to get some of his top finds. And in these previous cases you can compare the report and disclosure dates to see that he's waited several months, or in some cases more than a year for the patch release. If you actually read Tavis' disclosure and note the trivial nature of this bug, you'll see that he just got sick of waiting on Microsoft's extremely long fix pipeline, and chose this as an opportunity to push back.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Tavis' actions here, but the actual situation bears no resemblance to your uninformed framing.
You're wrong. MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser. They were extremely active in the development of XML, HTML4, DOM, and CSS. They proposed and implemented VML, which was combined with PGML to produce SVG. They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards, including DOM, CSS and SMIL. That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.
In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko, in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft's Trident engine. The problem is that Netscape couldn't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time. Without a competitor, Microsoft took over the market, peaking at 95% share in 2003. The die was cast in 2000, however, when Microsoft saw that they'd won browser war. That's when they started moving IE into maintenance, and migrating the top developers over to.NET. This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.
Fast forward to late 2004, and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape's Gecko engine. Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE, and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra. They chipped away at Microsoft's market share until Firefox reached around 10% at the end of 2005. Meanwhile, companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox, and eventually other browsers. And of course, there were all the security fumbles with IE, while the competing browsers were (mostly undeservedly) considered safer. At that point, Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.
So, now IE is back in active development, and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago, which places them well behind competitors like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. And Microsoft still doesn't consider IE to be a very important product, because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties. That's why the improvements are progressing so slowly, and they're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition. Meanwhile they're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7% per year.
TL;DR: MS cared about standards until they were on top; once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it. Now that they're losing the market, they're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again.
Looking at GDP in this context is useless. It's no different than me borrowing $10k, spending it, and saying I'm $10k more productive because I spend $10k more. It has no bearing on anybody's wellbeing.
Apparently you know nothing about Keynesian economics. I mean, if you're going to try to make such a failing argument, at least dress it up a little with some propaganda from von Mises or AEI.
It begins to become a little more clear when you back out direct government spending increases and the cash-for-clunkers debacle. Removing just those two government stimuli yields a negative GDP, meaning there was zero intrinsic economic growth in the third quarter.
That might be the dumbest statement I've heard all day. You're claiming that government stimulus didn't work because it's government stimulus, regardless of what the actual results were. How about making an actual argument instead of a lame tautology? There's a good chance I still wouldn't agree with you, but at least I'd respect you for trying.
At any rate, it seems that pretty much every financial analyst out there now is calling for a double-dip recession. And it's not just limited to rogue bloggers; CNBC analysts, who are usually perma-bulls, are starting to call for a double-dip recession. If and when that happens, we'll have made ourselves no better off by printing all that money, except our money will be worth even less and we'll be even harder pressed to manage a durable recovery due to even more wealth having been stripped from the middle class. But this is what we get when we listen to "credible" government-sponsored economists
And now you close with unsubstantiated innuendo, tawdry appeals to emotion, and not one shred of actual verifiable information? Look, I try to be patient, but this just exceeded my stupidity quota for the day. In the future could you at least try to form a cogent argument before wasting my time? I mean, is that really too much to ask?
Except I did it with the other party in power too.
So? I never said what side you were arguing for, merely that you're making this argument because your side is out of power.
I don't support any usurpation of the Constitution. We have the Amendment process if we need it.
No, you don't understand the Constitution. Our legal system evolves through legislation, legal precedent, and amendments. It may not be the legal system you want, but it's a lie to claim that it violates the Constitution.
And, since you want to see an accurate presentation of the facts, what did I write that isn't accurate?
You claim that the framers were of one mind on central government, but the truth is that this was a topic of fierce debate that ranged between the extremes of Jefferson and Hamilton. This divide is the primary reason for the creation of the first two political parties, with Hamilton's side forming the Federalists and Jefferson's forming the Democratic-Republicans.
See, Hamilton originally proposed things like life terms for Senators and federal appointment of state governors. Whereas Jefferson argued for strong state sovereignty with a federal government relegated strictly to international and inter-state affairs. In the end, both sides compromised and we ended up with some major ambiguities in our basic legal framework. However, through two centuries of legislation and precedent we've consistently reaffirmed the legal consensus that the federal government has broad authority granted by the Constitution.
Now, you can keep whining about what you want the Constitution to be, but the fact is that you're claim is a lie. It ignores the positions of half the framers, two centuries of law, and the current legal reality.
You appear confused. The economic stimulus is being apportioned out to take effect over a roughly two year span. This was done intentionally because unemployment lags so far behind other economic factors. So, what argument are you trying to make here?
Of course, when your guy shits on the Constitution, that's "good" and when my guy does it, it's "bad."
This is what it comes down to. You're just a partisan shill hiding behind a thin veneer of lies. Your newfound Constitutional dogma is just an excuse to oppose the party in power. That's not even ideology, it's just a bad joke.
For what it's worth, sides really don't matter to me. I just want to see an accurate presentation of the facts so that people can make informed decisions. But I guess that's something you don't understand.
Normally I prefer not to engage ACs, but I'd like to figure out what point you're trying to make. You made a statement about The Daily Herald being "far left," but then copied the GP's link to the Chicago Tribune. I don't know what Daily Herald you're referring to since I didn't see a link to one in the GP. However, I live in Chicago and read the Tribune daily; I also know it to be a center-right paper and an organization that helped found the Republican party.
As for your claim about the Illinois education stimulus numbers "being total nonsense," that kind of misleading hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, some of the preliminary reporting contains errors. However, you're making the same obvious logical error as the GP when you claim that reporting errors identified in a few school districts somehow applies to the entire $1.25 billion in education funds. You also seem to be excluding the likelihood that the administration will follow-up to address these errors.
Most importantly, if you'd read the Tribune article in that link you'd see that it's about the difficulty of assessing stimulus impact in jobs saved or created. The authors raise several interesting points about determining both the immediate and long term impacts on jobs. And they also point out that the numbers are at least as likely to be under-reporting the positive impact of stimulus funds due to conservative estimates and reporting errors.
Your first quote from Hamilton actually contradicts your own argument; of course, all of the quotes are simply examples of the classic Federalist vs. Antifederalist debate. This is the glaring point you seem to be missing. The framers were not of one mind on these issues.
Hamilton and the Federalists represented urban interests; Jefferson and the Antifederalists represented the rural and southern interests. For every Antifederalist argument you can find from Jefferson's side, you will find a counter from Hamilton and the Federalists. That's why your premise of constitutional originalism is painfully misguided. The framers never reached agreement on these issues, which is why the legal system was designed to evolve and grow through precedent, legislation, and amendment of the Constitution.
So, what you're doing is presenting one side of a debate that started over 200 years ago. And you're reaching so far back because the the intervening centuries of law have almost consistently sided with the Federalist position, rather than the Antifederalist position you're espousing.
That's why we see economic growth picking up, but not employment.
Please provide at least one citation of an economic recovery in which employment did not lag behind all other major indicators by at least 6 to 18 months. Because, based on all historical data, employment is always a lagging indicator of a recovery. And the current trends show employment improving by February 2010, which is right on schedule given that the other indicators picked up around July 2009.
Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation. There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights. Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending. Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well. Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.
As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips. Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com. No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth. And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus." We had 3.5% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package. After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.
You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future. I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position. However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy. Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.
You can believe in whatever you want, but don't confuse yourself by thinking that has anything to do with reality. The US dollar is the world reserve currency. We borrow at better rates than any other nation, and debt happens to be one of our biggest exports. We have that privileged status precisely because of our GDP, and it won't be changing in the near future.
And please stop with the ongoing misrepresentation of debt statistics. We're in the early stages of recovering from the worst economic crisis in 60 years. Even if the year-end debt ratio ends up at 85%, it's still a whole lot better than the depression era peak at 120%. And the fact is that deficit spending is pretty much the only way to pull the economy out of a major low like this. Fortunately, the economy is already showing signs of recovery, and that debt ratio is going to drop back down quickly. But if we don't find a way to reduce health care costs over the next decade it's going to get a whole lot worse, and stay there permanently.
So, rather than waste my time paying attention to meaningless epithets like "multi-trillion dollar spending spree," I think I'll just stick with logic and established economic theory. You're welcome to keep believing in imaginary economics if it makes you happy though. But please strop trying to drag other people into your delusions.
I believe he's talking about the United States of America. You know, the richest country on the planet, accounting for roughly a quarter of the world-wide GDP. I mean, you can go right ahead and cherry pick statistics to misrepresent this simple fact, but all it does is show you to be either dishonest or stupid... neither of which is going to sway the opinion of any rational person.
Standard toner consists of a pigment suspended in a petroleum-based polymer. As such, toner has the environmental impact of any other consumable plastic, including off-gassing and the potential exhaustion of a non-renewable resources. The real problem, however, is that toner must be removed from pulp when recycling paper. The toner removal process uses toxic chemicals and produces a non-biodegradable and non-recyclable sludge waste product.
Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower. Instead of easing penalties or adding incentives to do business in the US, the administration has instead elected to add more penalties. Two guesses how that will turn out.... Not like it hasn't been tried before.
That's an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. While reducing taxes often generates a short term increase in tax receipts, the long-term analysis of all recent tax cuts have shown them to be revenue neutral (Clinton's capital gains tax cut) or revenue negative (Bush's tax cut package). The fact is that the impact of tax cuts on tax revenues depends on the existing rate, the final rate, and where exactly those rates land on the hypothetical Laffer curve. Essentially, long term tax revenue goes up only if the existing tax rates are unnecessarily inhibiting economic growth. Otherwise, the best you'll get is a brief surge followed by a lower tax receipts.
Getting a sense of the Laffer curve can be very difficult. However, we can benchmark our own tax rates against the rest of the industrialized world to get at least a sense. In doing so, you'll find that our effective corporate tax rates are among the lowest of any industrialized nation--between 10%-20% for most large corporations that can take advantage of tax shelters. While I admit that's not a perfect benchmark, it certainly makes it extremely likely that we're already on the left side of the Laffer curve, which means we'd almost certainly see a long term revenue gain by more aggressively enforcing our corporate tax laws and reducing the ability to shelter revenues overseas. Moreover, such actions are almost certain to bring more jobs into the country by removing the exact same loopholes that strongly incentivised outsourcing jobs overseas. That job growth will generate more revenue, stimulate the economy, and the result will further increase tax revenues.
Now, in the future I would suggest that you perhaps devote a little more time researching the subjects you would chose to soapbox on. When Presidents like Reagan and Kennedy cut taxes they were dealing with corporate and personal rates that were double, triple, or even quadruple what they are now. That placed their starting position on the far right of the Laffer curve, and provided strong economic arguments for their cuts. However, circumstances now are nearly the opposite, and arguing for the same approach just shows you to be ignorant of the context.
I can only guess that you're the same anonymous coward from before--you know, the one who talks tough but is too afraid to even register a nickname on a website. So, I'll respond under that pretense.
Since you refuse to provide a citation for your first claim I'm not going to waste my time on it. Your second claim, however, is a lot more entertaining. I can only assume that you are not aware of the facts surrounding the study on which you've premised your entire argument. The thing is, it was debunked years ago by various independent sources; your own citation even points to at least one of them. What's even better is that John Lott, the study's author, has a reputation for slanting the facts to favor his arguments against gun legislation. For instance, he cited a survey he supposedly conducted in 1997, but was never able to provide the the survey data (claiming he lost it in a hard disk crash). Worse yet, he couldn't even name any of the grad students that were supposed to have performed the survey, and none ever came forward in his defense.
In summary, not only have your claims been summarily debunked, but your only source of empirical data has demonstrated a pattern of being overtly dishonest on this very topic. But hey, you can always continue living in your fantasy world where you get to play with lions.
Are you telling me that they would arrest a woman for carrying a handgun while walking through a area that is known for rapes?
What the hell is wrong with you? The area isn't "known for rapes." That would be like me claiming that wherever you live is "known for gun-toting, grammatically challenged inbreds." Based on all the facts the police have, there appears to be one assailant responsible for three rapes over a six month period.
Now, if you're asking me if the police would arrest someone for breaking the law, then my answer is that I would certainly expect them to.
Rants from a moronic coward aren't going to phase me. You apparently lack the intelligence to understand that getting criminals off the streets does improve public safety. You're also so self absorbed that you don't appreciate that I might also be concerned about the welfare of people other than just my wife.
So, feel free to be an anonymous little sheep whose only response to anything is kneejerk reactionism. Maybe if you took a moment to think for yourself you might not be wasting people's time with your inane little diatribes.
That is the most absurd suggestion I've heard in a long time. Given that handguns are banned inside the city limits, do you suggest she walk around with a rifle or shotgun slung over her shoulder? And since you apparently took the time to look up the spike in Chicago homicides last year, is there any reason why you didn't take the time to factor in the logistical impossibility of your proposal? Moreover, do you have even the slightest grasp of the nature of violent crime or the role of the police? Because I can't see how you would make such a moronic suggestion if you did.
Let me be clear on one point here. I have no problem with gun ownership. I learned how to shoot in the Marines, and my wife knows how as well. We also plan on teaching our children how to shoot because I consider it important to have a proper respect for and understanding of firearms. However, that understanding is exactly why I appreciate sensible firearms restrictions, and why I understand the fact that being armed is a very different thing from being safe. That's also why I can't fathom how a rational mind could possibly reach the conclusions you've proposed.
Slashdot Mirror
NoScript does nothing whatsoever to restrict extensions or plugins. Nor would it even possible for it to do so without a major redesign of Firefox's extension system including the introduction of a security model with trust levels.
There's nothing wrong with installing a program in the Application directory; it's pretty much the norm on Windows for per-user installations. Think of it as equivalent to ~/bin on Unix systems. Of course that doesn't fit in well for enterprise environments, but Google does provide a pack installer for managed systems, which installs under "Program Files" and lets you disable auto-updates. And while the current version of Chrome is lacking other enterprise features, the next version will have full support for GPO configuration, Admin templates, and all the other things you'd expect in an enterprise.
As for your absurd claim that per-user installations are somehow a security vulnerability, you're going to have to provide something to back that up. Because I've spent about 15 years in the information security field I can't even get close to a rationale for that one.
Actually, Tavis specifically suggested disabling the hcp: protocol handler. His statement on the hotfix was:
MS are the ones focusing on the hotfix and claiming it's flawed without providing an explanation. MS are also the ones desperately trying to frame this as Google, when it was Tavis operating independently on his own time.
I'm not saying I agree with what Tavis did, but MS' shady response certainly isn't making me less inclined to side with Tavis.
Actually, he recommended against using the hotfix, and instead suggested disabling the protocol handler. Speaking of, is anyone aware of the hcp: protocol being used for anything other than security exploits? Because in its 10 years of existence I've never once seen it used legitimately, but I've repeatedly seen it expose security vulnerabilities.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Google. Google has a strict policy that what you do on your own time and dime is yours. That's why they have a lot of really good security people there who all conduct independent research that's completely unaffiliated with Google. So, to be very clear, Tavis did this entirely on his own. MS mis-framing it as Google (and Slashdot buying it hook line and sinker) is just a smokescreen. Sorry, but you've been suckered.
You might want to pick a subject you know a little about before pontificating. Tavis Ormandy has reported dozens of critical security vulnerabilities to Microsoft and others. Just search for "Tavis Ormandy Windows kernel vulnerability" to get some of his top finds. And in these previous cases you can compare the report and disclosure dates to see that he's waited several months, or in some cases more than a year for the patch release. If you actually read Tavis' disclosure and note the trivial nature of this bug, you'll see that he just got sick of waiting on Microsoft's extremely long fix pipeline, and chose this as an opportunity to push back.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Tavis' actions here, but the actual situation bears no resemblance to your uninformed framing.
You're wrong. MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser. They were extremely active in the development of XML, HTML4, DOM, and CSS. They proposed and implemented VML, which was combined with PGML to produce SVG. They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards, including DOM, CSS and SMIL. That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.
In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko, in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft's Trident engine. The problem is that Netscape couldn't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time. Without a competitor, Microsoft took over the market, peaking at 95% share in 2003. The die was cast in 2000, however, when Microsoft saw that they'd won browser war. That's when they started moving IE into maintenance, and migrating the top developers over to .NET. This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.
Fast forward to late 2004, and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape's Gecko engine. Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE, and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra. They chipped away at Microsoft's market share until Firefox reached around 10% at the end of 2005. Meanwhile, companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox, and eventually other browsers. And of course, there were all the security fumbles with IE, while the competing browsers were (mostly undeservedly) considered safer. At that point, Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.
So, now IE is back in active development, and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago, which places them well behind competitors like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. And Microsoft still doesn't consider IE to be a very important product, because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties. That's why the improvements are progressing so slowly, and they're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition. Meanwhile they're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7% per year.
TL;DR: MS cared about standards until they were on top; once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it. Now that they're losing the market, they're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again.
Looking at GDP in this context is useless. It's no different than me borrowing $10k, spending it, and saying I'm $10k more productive because I spend $10k more. It has no bearing on anybody's wellbeing.
Apparently you know nothing about Keynesian economics. I mean, if you're going to try to make such a failing argument, at least dress it up a little with some propaganda from von Mises or AEI.
It begins to become a little more clear when you back out direct government spending increases and the cash-for-clunkers debacle. Removing just those two government stimuli yields a negative GDP, meaning there was zero intrinsic economic growth in the third quarter.
That might be the dumbest statement I've heard all day. You're claiming that government stimulus didn't work because it's government stimulus, regardless of what the actual results were. How about making an actual argument instead of a lame tautology? There's a good chance I still wouldn't agree with you, but at least I'd respect you for trying.
At any rate, it seems that pretty much every financial analyst out there now is calling for a double-dip recession. And it's not just limited to rogue bloggers; CNBC analysts, who are usually perma-bulls, are starting to call for a double-dip recession. If and when that happens, we'll have made ourselves no better off by printing all that money, except our money will be worth even less and we'll be even harder pressed to manage a durable recovery due to even more wealth having been stripped from the middle class. But this is what we get when we listen to "credible" government-sponsored economists
And now you close with unsubstantiated innuendo, tawdry appeals to emotion, and not one shred of actual verifiable information? Look, I try to be patient, but this just exceeded my stupidity quota for the day. In the future could you at least try to form a cogent argument before wasting my time? I mean, is that really too much to ask?
Except I did it with the other party in power too.
So? I never said what side you were arguing for, merely that you're making this argument because your side is out of power.
I don't support any usurpation of the Constitution. We have the Amendment process if we need it.
No, you don't understand the Constitution. Our legal system evolves through legislation, legal precedent, and amendments. It may not be the legal system you want, but it's a lie to claim that it violates the Constitution.
And, since you want to see an accurate presentation of the facts, what did I write that isn't accurate?
You claim that the framers were of one mind on central government, but the truth is that this was a topic of fierce debate that ranged between the extremes of Jefferson and Hamilton. This divide is the primary reason for the creation of the first two political parties, with Hamilton's side forming the Federalists and Jefferson's forming the Democratic-Republicans.
See, Hamilton originally proposed things like life terms for Senators and federal appointment of state governors. Whereas Jefferson argued for strong state sovereignty with a federal government relegated strictly to international and inter-state affairs. In the end, both sides compromised and we ended up with some major ambiguities in our basic legal framework. However, through two centuries of legislation and precedent we've consistently reaffirmed the legal consensus that the federal government has broad authority granted by the Constitution.
Now, you can keep whining about what you want the Constitution to be, but the fact is that you're claim is a lie. It ignores the positions of half the framers, two centuries of law, and the current legal reality.
You appear confused. The economic stimulus is being apportioned out to take effect over a roughly two year span. This was done intentionally because unemployment lags so far behind other economic factors. So, what argument are you trying to make here?
Of course, when your guy shits on the Constitution, that's "good" and when my guy does it, it's "bad."
This is what it comes down to. You're just a partisan shill hiding behind a thin veneer of lies. Your newfound Constitutional dogma is just an excuse to oppose the party in power. That's not even ideology, it's just a bad joke.
For what it's worth, sides really don't matter to me. I just want to see an accurate presentation of the facts so that people can make informed decisions. But I guess that's something you don't understand.
Normally I prefer not to engage ACs, but I'd like to figure out what point you're trying to make. You made a statement about The Daily Herald being "far left," but then copied the GP's link to the Chicago Tribune. I don't know what Daily Herald you're referring to since I didn't see a link to one in the GP. However, I live in Chicago and read the Tribune daily; I also know it to be a center-right paper and an organization that helped found the Republican party.
As for your claim about the Illinois education stimulus numbers "being total nonsense," that kind of misleading hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, some of the preliminary reporting contains errors. However, you're making the same obvious logical error as the GP when you claim that reporting errors identified in a few school districts somehow applies to the entire $1.25 billion in education funds. You also seem to be excluding the likelihood that the administration will follow-up to address these errors.
Most importantly, if you'd read the Tribune article in that link you'd see that it's about the difficulty of assessing stimulus impact in jobs saved or created. The authors raise several interesting points about determining both the immediate and long term impacts on jobs. And they also point out that the numbers are at least as likely to be under-reporting the positive impact of stimulus funds due to conservative estimates and reporting errors.
Your first quote from Hamilton actually contradicts your own argument; of course, all of the quotes are simply examples of the classic Federalist vs. Antifederalist debate. This is the glaring point you seem to be missing. The framers were not of one mind on these issues.
Hamilton and the Federalists represented urban interests; Jefferson and the Antifederalists represented the rural and southern interests. For every Antifederalist argument you can find from Jefferson's side, you will find a counter from Hamilton and the Federalists. That's why your premise of constitutional originalism is painfully misguided. The framers never reached agreement on these issues, which is why the legal system was designed to evolve and grow through precedent, legislation, and amendment of the Constitution.
So, what you're doing is presenting one side of a debate that started over 200 years ago. And you're reaching so far back because the the intervening centuries of law have almost consistently sided with the Federalist position, rather than the Antifederalist position you're espousing.
That's why we see economic growth picking up, but not employment.
Please provide at least one citation of an economic recovery in which employment did not lag behind all other major indicators by at least 6 to 18 months. Because, based on all historical data, employment is always a lagging indicator of a recovery. And the current trends show employment improving by February 2010, which is right on schedule given that the other indicators picked up around July 2009.
Nothing in your post does anything to contradict the original explanation. There are tens of thousands of projects receiving stimulus funding, and of course there will be some errors and oversights. Any large program will have that, but all that you've provided are a few barely sourced links that at most account for an infinitesimally small percentage of the spending. Given that this is all you have after months of public disclosure on stimulus spending, the only rational conclusion is that the program appears to be running very well. Percentage-wise, it's certainly running at a better loss ratio than any large project I've worked on at major private corporations.
As for the rest of your comment, here's a few tips. Don't go running around spamming links from far right websites like Hotair.com. No objective reader would be any more inclined to believe them than they are to take articles from DailyKos.com as gospel truth. And please, don't make insultingly hyperbolic claims about things like "the amazing failure of the stimulus." We had 3.5% positive GDP growth in the last quarter, which every credible economist attributes primarily to the stimulus package. After all, it's the first positive GDP we've seen in over a year, the best we've seen in more than two, and has broken us out of one of the deepest recessions in our history.
You can certainly argue that the effects of the stimulus are temporary and not worth the long term effects of an increased deficit and higher inflation in the future. I wouldn't agree with you (and I doubt most mainstream economists would) but you can certainly make the argument and provide some evidence to support your position. However, you cannot credibly claim that the stimulus hasn't worked to improve the current state of the economy. Making such claims in defiance of all facts to the contrary is just asinine.
You can believe in whatever you want, but don't confuse yourself by thinking that has anything to do with reality. The US dollar is the world reserve currency. We borrow at better rates than any other nation, and debt happens to be one of our biggest exports. We have that privileged status precisely because of our GDP, and it won't be changing in the near future.
And please stop with the ongoing misrepresentation of debt statistics. We're in the early stages of recovering from the worst economic crisis in 60 years. Even if the year-end debt ratio ends up at 85%, it's still a whole lot better than the depression era peak at 120%. And the fact is that deficit spending is pretty much the only way to pull the economy out of a major low like this. Fortunately, the economy is already showing signs of recovery, and that debt ratio is going to drop back down quickly. But if we don't find a way to reduce health care costs over the next decade it's going to get a whole lot worse, and stay there permanently.
So, rather than waste my time paying attention to meaningless epithets like "multi-trillion dollar spending spree," I think I'll just stick with logic and established economic theory. You're welcome to keep believing in imaginary economics if it makes you happy though. But please strop trying to drag other people into your delusions.
I believe he's talking about the United States of America. You know, the richest country on the planet, accounting for roughly a quarter of the world-wide GDP. I mean, you can go right ahead and cherry pick statistics to misrepresent this simple fact, but all it does is show you to be either dishonest or stupid... neither of which is going to sway the opinion of any rational person.
Standard toner consists of a pigment suspended in a petroleum-based polymer. As such, toner has the environmental impact of any other consumable plastic, including off-gassing and the potential exhaustion of a non-renewable resources. The real problem, however, is that toner must be removed from pulp when recycling paper. The toner removal process uses toxic chemicals and produces a non-biodegradable and non-recyclable sludge waste product.
Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower. Instead of easing penalties or adding incentives to do business in the US, the administration has instead elected to add more penalties. Two guesses how that will turn out.... Not like it hasn't been tried before.
That's an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. While reducing taxes often generates a short term increase in tax receipts, the long-term analysis of all recent tax cuts have shown them to be revenue neutral (Clinton's capital gains tax cut) or revenue negative (Bush's tax cut package). The fact is that the impact of tax cuts on tax revenues depends on the existing rate, the final rate, and where exactly those rates land on the hypothetical Laffer curve. Essentially, long term tax revenue goes up only if the existing tax rates are unnecessarily inhibiting economic growth. Otherwise, the best you'll get is a brief surge followed by a lower tax receipts.
Getting a sense of the Laffer curve can be very difficult. However, we can benchmark our own tax rates against the rest of the industrialized world to get at least a sense. In doing so, you'll find that our effective corporate tax rates are among the lowest of any industrialized nation--between 10%-20% for most large corporations that can take advantage of tax shelters. While I admit that's not a perfect benchmark, it certainly makes it extremely likely that we're already on the left side of the Laffer curve, which means we'd almost certainly see a long term revenue gain by more aggressively enforcing our corporate tax laws and reducing the ability to shelter revenues overseas. Moreover, such actions are almost certain to bring more jobs into the country by removing the exact same loopholes that strongly incentivised outsourcing jobs overseas. That job growth will generate more revenue, stimulate the economy, and the result will further increase tax revenues.
Now, in the future I would suggest that you perhaps devote a little more time researching the subjects you would chose to soapbox on. When Presidents like Reagan and Kennedy cut taxes they were dealing with corporate and personal rates that were double, triple, or even quadruple what they are now. That placed their starting position on the far right of the Laffer curve, and provided strong economic arguments for their cuts. However, circumstances now are nearly the opposite, and arguing for the same approach just shows you to be ignorant of the context.
I suppose you don't lock your door either, since a criminal can always pick the lock, or just kick the door in.
I can only guess that you're the same anonymous coward from before--you know, the one who talks tough but is too afraid to even register a nickname on a website. So, I'll respond under that pretense.
Since you refuse to provide a citation for your first claim I'm not going to waste my time on it. Your second claim, however, is a lot more entertaining. I can only assume that you are not aware of the facts surrounding the study on which you've premised your entire argument. The thing is, it was debunked years ago by various independent sources; your own citation even points to at least one of them. What's even better is that John Lott, the study's author, has a reputation for slanting the facts to favor his arguments against gun legislation. For instance, he cited a survey he supposedly conducted in 1997, but was never able to provide the the survey data (claiming he lost it in a hard disk crash). Worse yet, he couldn't even name any of the grad students that were supposed to have performed the survey, and none ever came forward in his defense.
In summary, not only have your claims been summarily debunked, but your only source of empirical data has demonstrated a pattern of being overtly dishonest on this very topic. But hey, you can always continue living in your fantasy world where you get to play with lions.
Are you telling me that they would arrest a woman for carrying a handgun while walking through a area that is known for rapes?
What the hell is wrong with you? The area isn't "known for rapes." That would be like me claiming that wherever you live is "known for gun-toting, grammatically challenged inbreds." Based on all the facts the police have, there appears to be one assailant responsible for three rapes over a six month period.
Now, if you're asking me if the police would arrest someone for breaking the law, then my answer is that I would certainly expect them to.
Rants from a moronic coward aren't going to phase me. You apparently lack the intelligence to understand that getting criminals off the streets does improve public safety. You're also so self absorbed that you don't appreciate that I might also be concerned about the welfare of people other than just my wife.
So, feel free to be an anonymous little sheep whose only response to anything is kneejerk reactionism. Maybe if you took a moment to think for yourself you might not be wasting people's time with your inane little diatribes.
That is the most absurd suggestion I've heard in a long time. Given that handguns are banned inside the city limits, do you suggest she walk around with a rifle or shotgun slung over her shoulder? And since you apparently took the time to look up the spike in Chicago homicides last year, is there any reason why you didn't take the time to factor in the logistical impossibility of your proposal? Moreover, do you have even the slightest grasp of the nature of violent crime or the role of the police? Because I can't see how you would make such a moronic suggestion if you did.
Let me be clear on one point here. I have no problem with gun ownership. I learned how to shoot in the Marines, and my wife knows how as well. We also plan on teaching our children how to shoot because I consider it important to have a proper respect for and understanding of firearms. However, that understanding is exactly why I appreciate sensible firearms restrictions, and why I understand the fact that being armed is a very different thing from being safe. That's also why I can't fathom how a rational mind could possibly reach the conclusions you've proposed.
Could you please explain how the answer to that question has any bearing on this discussion?