Wow. Just... wow. I can't believe this partisan rant was rated so highly, especially considering that it claims the GP argument was a lie without any proof whatsoever.
Ok, this will probably be modded into obscurity right away, but the GP point was *not* a lie. I won't try to point out way, but here's a link to a Google search on how the Democrats blocked McCain's reform efforts years ago.
You could also do your own research on the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 before deciding that PopeRatzo's post is "Interesting" rather than a bigger lie than the post he was responding to.
I think you've brought up a good point, here. Nobody really knows the answers to life's big questions. Some people come to certain conclusions, and others decide that there are other big answers (i.e. if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice).
The important thing in education is to make sure that kids know that no one has all the answers, and that they should take *everything* that *other people* say with a grain of salt. In other words teach them to think for themselves
I know that people will fight against this. People want to say "well, that's not science and doesn't belong in a science class". How about pointing out - yes, even in science class - that the scientific method can only teach you about objective observation, and that your own intuition should guide your beliefs.
Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?
Because, by and large, you won't. (well okay, you might, but most people wouldn't). Relying on individuals to be willing and able to appropriately address the country's national-level problems through voluntary donations of their own personal funds is simply unrealistic. The guaranteed result of adopting such a policy would be the effective destruction of the social safety net that many Americans rely on. And while you personally might find that acceptable, the vast majority of Americans do not.
Well, you may have a point, although it has been shown that growth in government spending for social programs reduces charitable contributions.
Now I'm not saying your wrong but I've never heard that statistic before. Back up your claim please.
Yes, it's really true, and I've seen these stats repeated many times (where have you been?) Here's George Will's column where he summarizes some of the statistics.
I guess you're really popular: you were modded "Informative" for saying you had never heard it before. Meh
The other side of this is all the wealthy Democrats (George Soros, Al Gore, etc.) that demand legislation to force everyone to pay higher taxes and conserve energy, but neither seem to have enough self-control to provide an example themselves.
This is going to modded down really quick, isn't it?
I think everyone is missing some important details from the study. The beliefs they selected for were strictly based on socially conservative values. They didn't look at party affiliation or fiscal values.
So they looked for people that were anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, pro-drug war, etc. While many "conservatives" fall into that group, many more are simply fiscal conservatives, believing in smaller, more constrained federal government, greater freedom and civil rights, etc. And while many Democrats favor an expanded welfare state and nationalized health care, many also are pro-family and oppose gay marriage (i.e. blacks have voted between 61% - 86% in favor of anti-gay legislation or amendments, but voted 90% Democratic in national elections).
So they aren't pulling in Ron Paul Republicans and finding they are jumpy, they are pulling in people that want their morality legislated and saying they're jumpy.
It's funny you should mention the energy policy thing. You really don't hear much of anything from the mainstream media other than who wants to drill ANWR and who doesn't.
It's McCain's fault that he doesn't promote his energy policy more. If you check out his energy policy web site, he first talks about domestic oil and gas, but then he goes on to talk about all kinds of green energy promotion ideas. Including, yes, a $300 million prize for development of battery technologies for a "Plug-in hybrid" and fully electric automobiles.
So, once again, I see little difference between these two. They are both globalists, and will sell out America in the interest of the New World Order.
That's the problem I always have with this stuff... There is so much data and the "signals" are so small.. how do they know they're not just seeing noise?
They use those noise-cancelling headphone things. Except they weigh like 14 tons.
So what? They are involved in all of it, not just at the RNC. They messed with people at the DNC, too, documented
here, and here, and here.
The point being that they do this everywhere (with the FBI and other armed bureaucracies involved). So it's the same thing they always do. They aren't doing anything "special" for the RNC.
Your citation does not mention the feds being involved.
Denver police went to a house that had been rented by the protest group Unconventional Denver as a convergence center, and despite seeing no illegal activity, two protesters were arrested, with one reportedly slammed on his head during the arrest.
Sorry no comparison.
The comparison is quite valid. If you check out the videos on Salon.com, you'll see that the groups involved were the Minneapolis police (in a supervisory role, it seems), and the County police.
It's not that there are 200,000 terrorists, it's just that they felt they needed that many letters while trying to track down the 5-10 terrorists they're looking for.
Kind of like sending 140,000 troops to Iraq to try to find 1 guy who is hiding somewhere on the Afghanistan Pakistan border. There's nothing so inefficient as government bureaucracy.
Ha! My automated bill payment system is *much* better, and I've been using it for many years. It validates the bills when they come in, and only pays when they are due. It maintains my account balance and lets me know at any time what my balance is doing and what's coming due. It follows up with creditors with any billing errors, too, and ensures they are corrected. It even balances my checkbook every month.
The only downside is that it's pretty expensive. Yea, all my bills get paid, but most of my leftover income goes to maintaining the service!
That's *easy*. States that build their freeways to connect Interstates get highway funds to do it. Those that don't... don't.
Of course it doesn't always work. When they built the Route 288 connector from north west Richmond to south west Richmond, the wealthy landowners pushed the route too far west to connect to I-64, so the state paid for the whole thing without highway funds.
Your comment on small businesses is totally wrong.
Business expenses are deductible. It does not matter if the business is organized as a sole proprietorship, a partnership or a corporation.
That only affects income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are applied to gross receipts for a sole proprietorship.
The impending demise of social security has been greatly exaggerated. I will refer you to another article by Paul Krugman. When that article was written, the very conservative estimates of the Social Security Administration had the trust fund running out in 2042.
The source you linked says "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years..." So, yea, no difference.
The little chart you linked to compares "projected after-tax income changes", and it's obvious it is based on lies. The sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts alone will cut my income, and I am barely middle class. Supposedly Obama will take more from the rich than McCain, but I'm not convinced the very wealthy won't be just buying tax shelters from congress like they always have. The chart (and most comparisons I've seen) also fail to take into account Obama's proposed increase in the payroll tax, which is huge. Of course, that's just a scheme to extend the viability of Social Security for a few more years, so people will ignore its impending collapse for a while longer. McCain isn't really addressing it at all. There's going to have to be a means test for benefits at some point - but of course admitting that won't get you elected.
Do I care whether my after-tax income move a few percentage points? No, not really. I can survive either way. Do I worry about my kids and grandkids facing a $12 - $15 trillion national debt? Yea, I worry about that a lot. I don't want them to have to learn Mandarin.
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
You're right about the sameness of these candidates. We basically have a corrupt one-party system disguised as a 2-party system. And I wasn't making any such assumptions, just pointing out that they both suck, and a lot of people feel that way.
That poll shows nothing but which candidate people think is the lesser of 2 evils. Asked to pick between the two choices, most people will just pick one, rather than trying to stand up to some kind of ideal that they are convinced will simply be ignored anyway.
That doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about the candidates the parties have decided to put in front of them - they certainly are. But most will (misguided as it is) simply hold their nose and vote for the one they think likely to do the least harm over the next 4 years.
"Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils means you are still choosing evil." I think it was Jerry Garcia who said that.
I wasn't trying to make an argument based on some "scientific polling data", just a gut reaction based on what the people I talk to are feeling. Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
According to the "favorable" ratings poll you referenced, both candidates have an "unfavorable" rating at about 35%, so I guess I was right.
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two.
5%!! You're kidding, right? It's probably more like 5% of Democrats happy with Obama and 5% of Republicans happy with McCain. Actually, it's probably rather higher for the Democrats - the socialists in the party seem to really like him. But really, it's more likely that it's actually a majority of voters that are entirely dissatisfied with either choice.
There were actually some good choices for both parties at the beginning of the quest for delegates, but the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders. I don't know how many people I've talked to that have said "Yea, I was going to vote for [statesman running for nomination] in the primary, but I didn't think [s]he could win."
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming (or is that climate change?)
Which is exactly what is happening anyway. Every big storm or unusual meteorological event these days is automatically assumed to be yet another affect of global climate change. According to some, it's even causing forest fires and earthquakes.
NPR has a whole series where they go to some part of the world each week, and talk about how climate change is affecting the people there in some way or another, and how the people are coping (or are doomed).
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
Maybe so, but gas prices aren't $4.00 a gallon because rednecks shot their guns. What you are paying at the pump is the direct result of environmentalist's policies fed by the FUD spread by AlGore.
Meh. Not entirely accurate, really. If Al Gore's "recommendations" had really been followed by a large proportion of Americans (ignoring for now his own failure to follow them), demand for energy should have decreased significantly. With everybody switching to more efficient lighting and appliances, driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars, etc., chances are that energy prices probably would not have spiked the way they did.
The NIMBYs and the environmental lobby that slowed US drilling and new power plant construction to a crawl and completely stopped any increased capacity for oil refineries and other infrastructure were the real culprits in keeping energy supplies too far below the demand curve. Not that Gore had any solutions for helping improve energy supplies.
Of course, the big jump in oil prices has more to do with the declining value of the US dollar than anything, but that's another issue altogether.
Tacit? Al Gore was all for the PMRC, and if voters were paying attention, that would have ended his political career.
You mean if the mainstream media's democratic fanboyz had bothered to report it, instead of acting as cheerleaders for every left-leaning politician to come down the pike.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Just... wow. I can't believe this partisan rant was rated so highly, especially considering that it claims the GP argument was a lie without any proof whatsoever.
Ok, this will probably be modded into obscurity right away, but the GP point was *not* a lie. I won't try to point out way, but here's a link to a Google search on how the Democrats blocked McCain's reform efforts years ago.
You could also do your own research on the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 before deciding that PopeRatzo's post is "Interesting" rather than a bigger lie than the post he was responding to.
I think you've brought up a good point, here. Nobody really knows the answers to life's big questions. Some people come to certain conclusions, and others decide that there are other big answers (i.e. if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice).
The important thing in education is to make sure that kids know that no one has all the answers, and that they should take *everything* that *other people* say with a grain of salt. In other words teach them to think for themselves
I know that people will fight against this. People want to say "well, that's not science and doesn't belong in a science class". How about pointing out - yes, even in science class - that the scientific method can only teach you about objective observation, and that your own intuition should guide your beliefs.
Mods around here suck... Or are just plain stupid. Can somebody rational fix this (there's nothing "flaimbait" about the parent.
Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?
Because, by and large, you won't. (well okay, you might, but most people wouldn't). Relying on individuals to be willing and able to appropriately address the country's national-level problems through voluntary donations of their own personal funds is simply unrealistic. The guaranteed result of adopting such a policy would be the effective destruction of the social safety net that many Americans rely on. And while you personally might find that acceptable, the vast majority of Americans do not.
Well, you may have a point, although it has been shown that growth in government spending for social programs reduces charitable contributions.
Then, again, some people are just miserly.
Now I'm not saying your wrong but I've never heard that statistic before. Back up your claim please.
Yes, it's really true, and I've seen these stats repeated many times (where have you been?) Here's George Will's column where he summarizes some of the statistics.
I guess you're really popular: you were modded "Informative" for saying you had never heard it before. Meh
The other side of this is all the wealthy Democrats (George Soros, Al Gore, etc.) that demand legislation to force everyone to pay higher taxes and conserve energy, but neither seem to have enough self-control to provide an example themselves.
This is going to modded down really quick, isn't it?
I think everyone is missing some important details from the study. The beliefs they selected for were strictly based on socially conservative values. They didn't look at party affiliation or fiscal values.
So they looked for people that were anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, pro-drug war, etc. While many "conservatives" fall into that group, many more are simply fiscal conservatives, believing in smaller, more constrained federal government, greater freedom and civil rights, etc. And while many Democrats favor an expanded welfare state and nationalized health care, many also are pro-family and oppose gay marriage (i.e. blacks have voted between 61% - 86% in favor of anti-gay legislation or amendments, but voted 90% Democratic in national elections).
So they aren't pulling in Ron Paul Republicans and finding they are jumpy, they are pulling in people that want their morality legislated and saying they're jumpy.
It's funny you should mention the energy policy thing. You really don't hear much of anything from the mainstream media other than who wants to drill ANWR and who doesn't.
It's McCain's fault that he doesn't promote his energy policy more. If you check out his energy policy web site, he first talks about domestic oil and gas, but then he goes on to talk about all kinds of green energy promotion ideas. Including, yes, a $300 million prize for development of battery technologies for a "Plug-in hybrid" and fully electric automobiles.
So, once again, I see little difference between these two. They are both globalists, and will sell out America in the interest of the New World Order.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama is definitely "in", so it won't matter if he wins, anyway.
Obama is backed by the Trilateral Commission, and has also been fully indoctrinated into the Bilderberg group. His campaign may be silent about it, but there is plenty of evidence that he is supporting their agenda.
That's the problem I always have with this stuff... There is so much data and the "signals" are so small.. how do they know they're not just seeing noise?
They use those noise-cancelling headphone things. Except they weigh like 14 tons.
If only there were some sort of theory to string these things together sensibly!
There is, but the computer needed to do *those* calculations hasn't been built yet.
So what? They are involved in all of it, not just at the RNC. They messed with people at the DNC, too, documented here, and here, and here.
The point being that they do this everywhere (with the FBI and other armed bureaucracies involved). So it's the same thing they always do. They aren't doing anything "special" for the RNC.
Your citation does not mention the feds being involved. Denver police went to a house that had been rented by the protest group Unconventional Denver as a convergence center, and despite seeing no illegal activity, two protesters were arrested, with one reportedly slammed on his head during the arrest. Sorry no comparison.
The comparison is quite valid. If you check out the videos on Salon.com, you'll see that the groups involved were the Minneapolis police (in a supervisory role, it seems), and the County police.
It's not that there are 200,000 terrorists, it's just that they felt they needed that many letters while trying to track down the 5-10 terrorists they're looking for.
Kind of like sending 140,000 troops to Iraq to try to find 1 guy who is hiding somewhere on the Afghanistan Pakistan border. There's nothing so inefficient as government bureaucracy.
Ha! My automated bill payment system is *much* better, and I've been using it for many years. It validates the bills when they come in, and only pays when they are due. It maintains my account balance and lets me know at any time what my balance is doing and what's coming due. It follows up with creditors with any billing errors, too, and ensures they are corrected. It even balances my checkbook every month.
The only downside is that it's pretty expensive. Yea, all my bills get paid, but most of my leftover income goes to maintaining the service!
It's called "my wife".
That's *easy*. States that build their freeways to connect Interstates get highway funds to do it. Those that don't ... don't.
Of course it doesn't always work. When they built the Route 288 connector from north west Richmond to south west Richmond, the wealthy landowners pushed the route too far west to connect to I-64, so the state paid for the whole thing without highway funds.
Second!
Your comment on small businesses is totally wrong. Business expenses are deductible. It does not matter if the business is organized as a sole proprietorship, a partnership or a corporation.
That only affects income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are applied to gross receipts for a sole proprietorship.
That's not what he said back in 1996
The little chart you linked to compares "projected after-tax income changes", and it's obvious it is based on lies. The sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts alone will cut my income, and I am barely middle class. Supposedly Obama will take more from the rich than McCain, but I'm not convinced the very wealthy won't be just buying tax shelters from congress like they always have. The chart (and most comparisons I've seen) also fail to take into account Obama's proposed increase in the payroll tax, which is huge. Of course, that's just a scheme to extend the viability of Social Security for a few more years, so people will ignore its impending collapse for a while longer. McCain isn't really addressing it at all. There's going to have to be a means test for benefits at some point - but of course admitting that won't get you elected.
Do I care whether my after-tax income move a few percentage points? No, not really. I can survive either way. Do I worry about my kids and grandkids facing a $12 - $15 trillion national debt? Yea, I worry about that a lot. I don't want them to have to learn Mandarin.
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
You're right about the sameness of these candidates. We basically have a corrupt one-party system disguised as a 2-party system. And I wasn't making any such assumptions, just pointing out that they both suck, and a lot of people feel that way.
That poll shows nothing but which candidate people think is the lesser of 2 evils. Asked to pick between the two choices, most people will just pick one, rather than trying to stand up to some kind of ideal that they are convinced will simply be ignored anyway.
That doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about the candidates the parties have decided to put in front of them - they certainly are. But most will (misguided as it is) simply hold their nose and vote for the one they think likely to do the least harm over the next 4 years.
"Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils means you are still choosing evil." I think it was Jerry Garcia who said that.
I wasn't trying to make an argument based on some "scientific polling data", just a gut reaction based on what the people I talk to are feeling. Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
According to the "favorable" ratings poll you referenced, both candidates have an "unfavorable" rating at about 35%, so I guess I was right.
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two.
5%!! You're kidding, right? It's probably more like 5% of Democrats happy with Obama and 5% of Republicans happy with McCain. Actually, it's probably rather higher for the Democrats - the socialists in the party seem to really like him. But really, it's more likely that it's actually a majority of voters that are entirely dissatisfied with either choice.
There were actually some good choices for both parties at the beginning of the quest for delegates, but the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders. I don't know how many people I've talked to that have said "Yea, I was going to vote for [statesman running for nomination] in the primary, but I didn't think [s]he could win."
Next time, vote your conscience.
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming (or is that climate change?)
Which is exactly what is happening anyway. Every big storm or unusual meteorological event these days is automatically assumed to be yet another affect of global climate change. According to some, it's even causing forest fires and earthquakes.
NPR has a whole series where they go to some part of the world each week, and talk about how climate change is affecting the people there in some way or another, and how the people are coping (or are doomed).
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
Maybe so, but gas prices aren't $4.00 a gallon because rednecks shot their guns. What you are paying at the pump is the direct result of environmentalist's policies fed by the FUD spread by AlGore.
Meh. Not entirely accurate, really. If Al Gore's "recommendations" had really been followed by a large proportion of Americans (ignoring for now his own failure to follow them), demand for energy should have decreased significantly. With everybody switching to more efficient lighting and appliances, driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars, etc., chances are that energy prices probably would not have spiked the way they did.
The NIMBYs and the environmental lobby that slowed US drilling and new power plant construction to a crawl and completely stopped any increased capacity for oil refineries and other infrastructure were the real culprits in keeping energy supplies too far below the demand curve. Not that Gore had any solutions for helping improve energy supplies.
Of course, the big jump in oil prices has more to do with the declining value of the US dollar than anything, but that's another issue altogether.
Tacit? Al Gore was all for the PMRC, and if voters were paying attention, that would have ended his political career.
You mean if the mainstream media's democratic fanboyz had bothered to report it, instead of acting as cheerleaders for every left-leaning politician to come down the pike.