Santorum has a "definition" too...doesn't mean it's a valid one.
You can defend it's usage all you like, but that wont change the fact that Islamist is a pejorative invented by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans to disparage their political opponents. You can find lots of references for that, too.
"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.
You can also find definitions for "Santorum", when Googled. Doesn't mean that it's a valid term. "Islamist" is a pejorative used by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as how "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans.
Please explain the honesty of comparing charter schools to public schools when the former are free to pick and choose the best students while leaving the special ed kids to the public.
Then explain how you plan to retain good teachers after you've finished breaking the teacher's unions. But that's the joy of being a conservative - you get to bitch about how public schools 'coddle' students that are 'lazy', yet promote private schools where teachers have a high incentive (i.e., keeping their jobs) to reward the offspring of the rich and powerful with good grades - whether or not they deserve them.
Then explain how you're going to restrain the CEO from cutting corners in order to maintain his annual double digit increase in pay. Then explain how you're going to restrain investors from demanding any savings (and then some) go straight into their pockets.
With public schools, you are free to vote out top management, or run for the school board yourself. Good luck doing that with a private school.
Being able to pull your kids out of a school is what, at the end of the day, provides for accountability.
Nonsense. Public schools aren't grocery stores, competing for students - nor should they be. The notion that public school teachers are lazy slackers that would magically blossom into brilliant teachers if they just had to compete for their base wages is Randian drivel.
Who do you think you're kidding? Public schools can be held accountable as government entities for civil liberties and civil rights violations - Google "ACLU sues school". Private schools can tell you to piss off. If a public school does something that angers you off as a parent, you could run for the school board or push a ballot initiative with like-minded parents. If a private school pisses you off, you're shit up a creek if you aren't wealthy or have a choice of a better private school.
Charter schools are only "cheaper" when they can skimp on services that public schools can't. Special education, for one. Improving public schools isn't rocket science - lower classroom sizes, present a rounded education, and pay decent salaries so you can attract and retain decent teachers.
The real purpose of charter schools is to break teacher unions and to shovel public money into the hands of investors.
Now: Dad gets diagnosed with prostate cancer five years after retirement. Dad gets cancer treatments covered by the government via Medicare. Which, by the way, is better care for less money than he would get through private insurance.
End of the story: Dad dies 10 years later, leaving a house and what's left of his life savings to you kids.
Before Medicare: Dad gets diagnosed with prostate cancer five years after retirement. Dad and Mom blow their life savings on initial treatments, then mortgage the house to pay for the rest. Then Dad and Mom either have to find jobs years after they've already retired, or move in with one of their kids.
End of the story: Dad dies 10 years later, not only not leaving a house or other inheritance to his children, but actually leaves them in debt as they paid for his medical care.
And that's assuming Dad had savings and equity to pay for his care. If he was poor...well, it was nice knowing you.
Economic growth and educational improvements (not supported by the Johnson check writing frenzy) helped move large segments of the population from poverty to productive middle class citizens.
Doctor, you ignorant (and elitist) slut. Helping the poor does spur economic activity. The most effective economic stimulus there is, dollar for dollar, is increasing food stamps for the poor. Because they will immediately go out and spend that money - whereas the only thing the rich did with the Bush Tax Cuts was invest them overseas.
The War on Poverty was supposed to "end poverty". How well did we do?
Pretty damned well, thank you for asking. Basic social programs are what keeps large portions of the U.S. from turning into a third world country. Of course poverty will always be with us, just as avarice will always be with us, and no one ever pretended otherwise.
I guess you think a few more people can scam houses and leave the rest of us holding the bill (because of "predatory mortgages") is a win?
I guess you willfully ignored the fact that the vast majority of the fraud was committed by banks? I guess you willfully ignored the bankruptcy "reform" in 2006 that made it much harder to declare bankruptcy? I guess you willfully ignored the fact that there was an explosion of lending after that, as lenders were eager to hand out money to anyone and everyone - because it would be harder to discharge that debt in bankruptcy?
Pout while waving your arms around as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that Apple takes a very small portion of App revenue as profit. There are plenty of honest ways to bitch at Apple - like offshoring their manufacturing with their high profit margins - but this isn't one of them.
You may have have thought games like Super Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, and so on were hard at the time you were playing them, but you probably didn't guess they were NP-hard
Go ahead and use pedantic terms as much as you want when writing summaries - but it's rather annoying when you don't take.5 seconds to define them. Linking to a pendantic explanation of your pedantic writing makes it only marginally less annoying.
Like:
Here let me tell you a story where a vulpini went after a sciuridae in my back yard.
vs
Here let me tell you a story where a vulpini (fox for you plebeians) went after a sciuridae (squirrel) in my back yard.
When a child mouths off to a parent, the child is punished.
Irrelevant comparison, as parents are not actors of the state.
It's also a jurisdictional issue - what happens off of school grounds and outside of school events is none of their damned business. The only thing they can do is report the issue to the parents or to law enforcement.
Why should a publisher/author/whatever not be able to charge whatever they want for an eBook?
Putting the issue of collusion aside, who, exactly, is saying that publishers can't charge what they want? Is someone proposing a law capping ebook prices at an arbitrary level? No?
Then what are you going on about?
People are simply pointing out that pricing an ebook at the same price as a physical copy from a store is a ripoff for the person buying the ebook. With a book you have actual physical costs: printing, shipping, storage, labor at B&N, etc. Whereas ebooks are nearly pure profit for the publisher.
And with physical books, you can resell them or give them away when you've finished reading them - something you can't do with commercial ebooks.
It's not a completely free and open market when it's dominated by dominant, colluding players. Just as the fact you could install NetBSD on your PC in 2002 changed the fact that Microsoft had a functional monopoly on desktop operating systems.
You also seem to assume that I'm supportive of overseas wars
I didn't say anything about overseas wars.
internal spying on the citizens
I didn't say anything about internal spying on the citizens.
and a general overreach of government
I didn't say anything about a general overreach of government.
Likewise you seem to believe that I'm opposed to a welfare program or on assistance to the less priviledged or on retirement programs. On all accounts, you are incorrect.
I was responding to two points: the Constitutionality of the "defined roles of federal government", and the "appropriateness" of how much we spend on defense, which is double the advertized size. On all accounts, you failed to respond to what was actually written.
Why ask why you would trim 20 minutes of footage to the parts where actual action actually happens? Do you get on your nightly news every time they show snippets of a politicians speech, instead of the whole 30 minute presentation?
Or are you making an argument of convenience, since again this was not a Brietbart hit piece where footage was spliced in?
By "draconian", I mean disenfranchising thousands of people across the country in pursuit of a problem invented by partisan hacks for the sole purpose of vote suppression. Denying people the right to vote because of petty bullshit like VA-issued identification cards being rejected because they don't have a home address on the card:
A Portage County World War II veteran was turned away from a polling place this morning because his driverâ(TM)s license had expired in January and his new Veterans Affairs ID did not include his home address.
And "free" voting ID's that cost $200 for retirees living on a fixed income:
Ruthelle Frank was born on Aug. 21, 1927, in her home in Brokaw.
Though Frank never had a birth certificate, the state Register of Deeds in Madison has a record of her birth. It can generate a birth certificate for her -- for a fee. Normally, the cost is $20.
"I look at that like paying a fee to vote," Frank said.
And for Frank, that might not be the end of it. The attending physician at Frank's birth misspelled her maiden name, which was Wedepohl. To get a birth certificate that has correct information, she will have to petition a court to amend the document -- a weekslong process that could cost $200 or more.
You're denying tens of thousands of their voting rights because of less than a dozen provable cases of vote fraud in the whole damned country.
And if you think permitting fraudulent registrations does not fundamentally undermine the election process then there is just no debating with you.
Did you think about that for two seconds before posting? You could have a billion Mickey Mouses on registration forms and it matters not a whit if none of them actually, you know, vote.
By fraud I was more referring to cases like
Cases that can be looked up on Google? Looks like there are some details that you left out of the Daily Caller storyline:
McLean and his fiancee Leach admit to participating in early voting in the 2008 election. Unsure about the process on Election Day, they said they went to the polls to make sure their vote counted.
"I was confused and did not know," McLean said. "This is my second time voting for a president in my life."
Leach said she even told a poll worker about it.
"We told her we had already early voted, and we just wanted to make sure it counted," Leach said. "She said, 'If you have a ballot, then go ahead and vote.' And that is what we did. We did not think anything of it."
Huh, I wonder why those facts were left out of the storyline?
And let the 2000 elections go.
Who do you think you're kidding? Conservatives impeached a Democratic president for getting a blow job - what would they do if a Democratic president stole an election, sat on his ass as 3,000 Americans were killed, lied us into a war, doubled the national debt, and shredded the Constitution?
Two independent reviews (well 1 was run by Democrats) of the felons list found no foul play just some asinine short cuts taken by a company trying to save some money.
Again, who do you think you're kidding? The Secretary of State of Florida was Bush's co-chair, and
No, fuck you for looking at workers making a decent wage and thinking "they have too much" instead of "how can the rest of us do that well". If you want to be an ankle grabbing tool for the oligarch class who make money whether they improve or blow up the economy, be a fool and a tool.
Where does Apple make most of it's money - hardware. Where does EA make most of it's money - software.
What does EA stand to gain from having it's own app store: cutting out the middleman. No more Best Buy or GameStop taking a cut of the purchase price. After the credit card companies take their cut and maintenance costs are paid for, it's pure profit for EA.
...most of which goes to the credit card companies and for maintenance costs. Apple makes a small profit off the store, but it's entire purpose is to move sales of iDevices. So the facts simply do not meet the "Apple is meaaaan to developers" storyline.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a tip, some pot and prunes might help you lighten up and get that stick out of your ass.
Presidents get called nicknames - Jack, Gipper, Dubbya, Willie, Barry - this and other shocking developments at 11.
Santorum has a "definition" too...doesn't mean it's a valid one.
You can defend it's usage all you like, but that wont change the fact that Islamist is a pejorative invented by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans to disparage their political opponents. You can find lots of references for that, too.
You can also find definitions for "Santorum", when Googled. Doesn't mean that it's a valid term. "Islamist" is a pejorative used by non-Muslims to disparage Muslims, same as how "Democrat Party" is used by Republicans.
Islamist. It's not a real word, stop using it please.
Please explain the honesty of comparing charter schools to public schools when the former are free to pick and choose the best students while leaving the special ed kids to the public.
Then explain how you plan to retain good teachers after you've finished breaking the teacher's unions. But that's the joy of being a conservative - you get to bitch about how public schools 'coddle' students that are 'lazy', yet promote private schools where teachers have a high incentive (i.e., keeping their jobs) to reward the offspring of the rich and powerful with good grades - whether or not they deserve them.
Then explain how you're going to restrain the CEO from cutting corners in order to maintain his annual double digit increase in pay. Then explain how you're going to restrain investors from demanding any savings (and then some) go straight into their pockets.
With public schools, you are free to vote out top management, or run for the school board yourself. Good luck doing that with a private school.
Nonsense. Public schools aren't grocery stores, competing for students - nor should they be. The notion that public school teachers are lazy slackers that would magically blossom into brilliant teachers if they just had to compete for their base wages is Randian drivel.
Who do you think you're kidding? Public schools can be held accountable as government entities for civil liberties and civil rights violations - Google "ACLU sues school". Private schools can tell you to piss off. If a public school does something that angers you off as a parent, you could run for the school board or push a ballot initiative with like-minded parents. If a private school pisses you off, you're shit up a creek if you aren't wealthy or have a choice of a better private school.
Indeed, what is so hard to understand? Who's going to have more time to invest in their children's education:
A two parent household working 100-140 hours a week between 4-6 different jobs, with no health insurance or vacation time or sick leave
Or
A two parent household working 40-80 hours a week with health insurance and vacation time and sick leave?
Charter schools are only "cheaper" when they can skimp on services that public schools can't. Special education, for one. Improving public schools isn't rocket science - lower classroom sizes, present a rounded education, and pay decent salaries so you can attract and retain decent teachers.
The real purpose of charter schools is to break teacher unions and to shovel public money into the hands of investors.
/watb
FTFY. If Brand X doesn't offer whatever it is you want, then buy from whatever company offers what you do want.
Now: Dad gets diagnosed with prostate cancer five years after retirement. Dad gets cancer treatments covered by the government via Medicare. Which, by the way, is better care for less money than he would get through private insurance.
End of the story: Dad dies 10 years later, leaving a house and what's left of his life savings to you kids.
Before Medicare: Dad gets diagnosed with prostate cancer five years after retirement. Dad and Mom blow their life savings on initial treatments, then mortgage the house to pay for the rest. Then Dad and Mom either have to find jobs years after they've already retired, or move in with one of their kids.
End of the story: Dad dies 10 years later, not only not leaving a house or other inheritance to his children, but actually leaves them in debt as they paid for his medical care.
And that's assuming Dad had savings and equity to pay for his care. If he was poor...well, it was nice knowing you.
Doctor, you ignorant (and elitist) slut. Helping the poor does spur economic activity. The most effective economic stimulus there is, dollar for dollar, is increasing food stamps for the poor. Because they will immediately go out and spend that money - whereas the only thing the rich did with the Bush Tax Cuts was invest them overseas.
Pretty damned well, thank you for asking. Basic social programs are what keeps large portions of the U.S. from turning into a third world country. Of course poverty will always be with us, just as avarice will always be with us, and no one ever pretended otherwise.
I guess you willfully ignored the fact that the vast majority of the fraud was committed by banks? I guess you willfully ignored the bankruptcy "reform" in 2006 that made it much harder to declare bankruptcy? I guess you willfully ignored the fact that there was an explosion of lending after that, as lenders were eager to hand out money to anyone and everyone - because it would be harder to discharge that debt in bankruptcy?
Spare us the elitism.
Pout while waving your arms around as much as you like, but it wont change the fact that Apple takes a very small portion of App revenue as profit. There are plenty of honest ways to bitch at Apple - like offshoring their manufacturing with their high profit margins - but this isn't one of them.
Go ahead and use pedantic terms as much as you want when writing summaries - but it's rather annoying when you don't take .5 seconds to define them. Linking to a pendantic explanation of your pedantic writing makes it only marginally less annoying.
Like:
Here let me tell you a story where a vulpini went after a sciuridae in my back yard.
vs
Here let me tell you a story where a vulpini (fox for you plebeians) went after a sciuridae (squirrel) in my back yard.
So it's a bad thing that families can pass houses down to the next generation instead of debt, as parents grow older and require more medical care?
It's called accountability.
Welcome to false talking points. The school is overreaching their authority where it doesn't belong.
Irrelevant comparison, as parents are not actors of the state.
It's also a jurisdictional issue - what happens off of school grounds and outside of school events is none of their damned business. The only thing they can do is report the issue to the parents or to law enforcement.
Putting the issue of collusion aside, who, exactly, is saying that publishers can't charge what they want? Is someone proposing a law capping ebook prices at an arbitrary level? No?
Then what are you going on about?
People are simply pointing out that pricing an ebook at the same price as a physical copy from a store is a ripoff for the person buying the ebook. With a book you have actual physical costs: printing, shipping, storage, labor at B&N, etc. Whereas ebooks are nearly pure profit for the publisher.
And with physical books, you can resell them or give them away when you've finished reading them - something you can't do with commercial ebooks.
So, what are you gong on about again?
It's not a completely free and open market when it's dominated by dominant, colluding players. Just as the fact you could install NetBSD on your PC in 2002 changed the fact that Microsoft had a functional monopoly on desktop operating systems.
I didn't say anything about overseas wars.
I didn't say anything about internal spying on the citizens.
I didn't say anything about a general overreach of government.
I was responding to two points: the Constitutionality of the "defined roles of federal government", and the "appropriateness" of how much we spend on defense, which is double the advertized size. On all accounts, you failed to respond to what was actually written.
Why ask why you would trim 20 minutes of footage to the parts where actual action actually happens? Do you get on your nightly news every time they show snippets of a politicians speech, instead of the whole 30 minute presentation?
Or are you making an argument of convenience, since again this was not a Brietbart hit piece where footage was spliced in?
By "draconian", I mean disenfranchising thousands of people across the country in pursuit of a problem invented by partisan hacks for the sole purpose of vote suppression. Denying people the right to vote because of petty bullshit like VA-issued identification cards being rejected because they don't have a home address on the card:
And "free" voting ID's that cost $200 for retirees living on a fixed income:
You're denying tens of thousands of their voting rights because of less than a dozen provable cases of vote fraud in the whole damned country.
Did you think about that for two seconds before posting? You could have a billion Mickey Mouses on registration forms and it matters not a whit if none of them actually, you know, vote.
Cases that can be looked up on Google? Looks like there are some details that you left out of the Daily Caller storyline:
Huh, I wonder why those facts were left out of the storyline?
Who do you think you're kidding? Conservatives impeached a Democratic president for getting a blow job - what would they do if a Democratic president stole an election, sat on his ass as 3,000 Americans were killed, lied us into a war, doubled the national debt, and shredded the Constitution?
Again, who do you think you're kidding? The Secretary of State of Florida was Bush's co-chair, and
No, fuck you for looking at workers making a decent wage and thinking "they have too much" instead of "how can the rest of us do that well". If you want to be an ankle grabbing tool for the oligarch class who make money whether they improve or blow up the economy, be a fool and a tool.
Just don't drag the rest of us down with you.
Did you think about this before posting?
Where does Apple make most of it's money - hardware.
Where does EA make most of it's money - software.
What does EA stand to gain from having it's own app store: cutting out the middleman. No more Best Buy or GameStop taking a cut of the purchase price. After the credit card companies take their cut and maintenance costs are paid for, it's pure profit for EA.
...most of which goes to the credit card companies and for maintenance costs. Apple makes a small profit off the store, but it's entire purpose is to move sales of iDevices. So the facts simply do not meet the "Apple is meaaaan to developers" storyline.