Because their parents died in a car crash, the kids were abused, or any of a variety of other circumstances. You talk about parents, but you forget how many kids don't have any.
"When banks and walmarts and mcdonalds and what not post billion dollar profits and pay their employees THE LEGAL MINIMUM they're definitely not poor by choice."
YES THEY ARE POOR BY CHOICE. They CHOOSE not to educate themselves (virtually EVERYONE can get a student loan, so save your money arguments) they CHOOSE to have kids they can't support, they CHOOSE not to work three jobs if necessary.
I reiterate my previous statement
"your bias is too strong, and you're too weak to overcome your stupid prejudices."
Otherwise you'd realize that MS could very easily get away with giving NOTHING AT ALL EVER. And save your stupid "tax breaks" arguments too, there are a hundred ways to shelter earnings that don't send any money to charity.
"If they wanted to help they'd pay their employees properly. It's solely for the tax-write off and the positive P.R."
This is stupid. OF COURSE it's for the PR and tax write offs, but that doesn't make it inherently bad. As far as paying their employees, those employees CHOOSE to work there. If they don't like the pay, LEAVE.
So, apart from a few incredibly weak arguments that I've easily refuted, is there anything else you'd like to say about the subject? I'm sure if I destroy your points often enough, you'll see the error of your ways.
"In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812 he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root. The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium."
So aluminum was the first spelling, which was later change by language nazis because it didn't sound right.
Don't blame us Americans for trying to be historically accurate.
No, but you just demonstrated that you can't read for comprehension.
US is to rape victim as Japan is to rapist (or you are to troll). Get it?
"Correct if I'm wrong (and I very well might be), wasn't Pearl Harbour a military base?"
No, it's a HARBOR. Yes there is a military base there, but since the Japanese bombed the whole damned area, civilians included, your point has no merit.
"And further correct me (but I don't think I am), weren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMPLETELY civilian cities?"
Oh, yes the fuck you are wrong. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MAJOR industrial facilities, dedicated to the war effort. That's part of the reason they were chosen over more prestigious targets (Tokyo, Kyoto).
"Yes, Japan attacked first, and USA should have fought back - but with atom bombs? How can the States call themselves 'civilized' with an attack like that?"
Because the alternative was slaughtering most of the population of Japan. They were preparing the women and children to fight in case of an invasion. So I suppose your point is it would have been better to wipe them out unequivocally instead of hitting them so hard their desire to fight was gone. Great logic.
"I'm not a hippie/troll/peace junkie trying to say USA-sucks! , but if we want to argue about who is BETTER and more CIVILIZED, then....really, neither is."
Ok, two things. This is a "who WAS more civilized" discussion. Who IS more civilized isn't relevant, because we're talking about what happened 60 years ago.
Second, you've demonstrated a vast misunderstanding (I would go so far as to say ignorance) of historical FACT. Not MY opinion, but FACT. Not facts written by the victor, just FACTS. In the future if you plan to discuss things like this, try to avoid being completely mis-informed when you do so.
I think, honestly, you have no idea what you're blathering about. Now the real question is, are you going to bother educating yourself so you can stop sounding foolish?
"I don't think I ever heard the USA apologize to Japan for the nuclear *attacks* on Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
I doubt you've ever heard a rape victim apologize to their rapist either.
When you get attacked, you're justified in defending yourself. Historical revisionism aside, Pearl Harbor happened first. If Japan wanted to avoid getting nuked, they should have played nicely.
Um how can you say that "Americans have fully turned against Bush" when according to YOUR link that's not the case?
"Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell"
So, why get on a web board, and mak a demonstrably false statement after railing against Bush for "lies" he told to go to war in Iraq?
" I assume your ad-hominem attacks have to make up for the lack of argument?"
Nice try, but no. Why don't you explain which statement you're referring to so I can expose your ignorance.
And as for my argument, you're either blind or stupid (I'm certain it's stupid) YOU made the assertion GP implied arabs/islam, but anyone who's not an imbecile would have realized arabs and islam are not the same. YOU assumed they were, you are ignorant, and YOU are racist for stereotyping arabs as musilms.
"As for racism, you seem to mix up a lot of race distinctions in your reply."
Ok, quote one then liar. You're a fucking hypocrite, who stereotypes people then is too stupid to realize it. You'll forgive me if I dismiss your moronic reply as the poorly thought out attempt at defending yourself that it is.
You're a fucking racist. Assuming arabs are islamic demonstrates your racism, yet you try to change the discussion to made up claims about my post. I did none of the things you lie and say I did.
Try again bitch, you're just embarassing your racist, bigoted, ignorant self further.
Well, since you've already demostrated you're a pathetic fucking liar who claims to be an expert and former researcher in whatever topic is being discussed, you have zero credibility.
Why are you so stupid that you think you can lie over and over without getting caught?
WHY ARE YOU SUCH A DISGUSTING PERSON? WHY DO YOU INSIST ON LYING TO TRY AND CONVINCE PEOPLE?
Oh, right it's because you know your position is stupid, and you're stupid, so the only way to convince people is to lie about the merits of your argument.
"true, xenophobia or prejudice would have been a better term. But does that make it any better?"
No, they would have been CORRECT. I understand such a goal is beyond your reach, but try anyway.
"With terms like 'allah' (instead of 'god') and infidels he was certainly alluding to arabs/islam."
Ah, you fucking hypocrite, now YOU'RE being racist because you're assuming islam must mean arabs. What about Indonesia? (the world's largest islamic state) What about Iran? They're not arab states, but they are far and away islamic.
You just exposed yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself you disgusting piece of trash, stop letting your inferiority make you a bigot.
"Let's just completely ignore any research that shows the negative effects of the Chronic use of marijuana"
How about you post some of this research?
I suggest that in the future, before you use "research" as your basis for forming your opinions, you'd better make sure the research exists in the first place.
Oh, wait you succumbed to the same idiotic compulsion that so many others have, that is to call things racist where THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF RACE INVOLVED.
Shut up and learn the difference between racsim and prejudice, and keep your nose out of these discussions until you are less ignorant.
"But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data."
The global warming models all have a LARGE fudge factor built in to make them work. Without it many of the models fail in a ridiculously short amount of time (i.e earth freezes in a week etc.)
Worse, the models are KNOWN TO BE INACCURATE, yet are accepted anyway.
The models are the worst possible evidence to use in this discussion, and doing so cancels every attempt at credibility.
A model that you've tweaked to get the results you want isn't science, it's propaganda. Why are you so eager to swallow one sides propaganda over the other's?
Slashdot Mirror
"for those of you who are going to mod me down as a troll [and I know you're there], it's a JOKE. get a sense of HUMOUR"
It would probably be funny, if it hadn't been done a thousand times in a thousand ways while discussing a thousand different topics.
That, and the fact that it was just dumb.
"Why are the kids poor?"
Because their parents died in a car crash, the kids were abused, or any of a variety of other circumstances. You talk about parents, but you forget how many kids don't have any.
"When banks and walmarts and mcdonalds and what not post billion dollar profits and pay their employees THE LEGAL MINIMUM they're definitely not poor by choice."
YES THEY ARE POOR BY CHOICE. They CHOOSE not to educate themselves (virtually EVERYONE can get a student loan, so save your money arguments) they CHOOSE to have kids they can't support, they CHOOSE not to work three jobs if necessary.
I reiterate my previous statement
"your bias is too strong, and you're too weak to overcome your stupid prejudices."
Otherwise you'd realize that MS could very easily get away with giving NOTHING AT ALL EVER. And save your stupid "tax breaks" arguments too, there are a hundred ways to shelter earnings that don't send any money to charity.
"If they wanted to help they'd pay their employees properly. It's solely for the tax-write off and the positive P.R."
This is stupid. OF COURSE it's for the PR and tax write offs, but that doesn't make it inherently bad. As far as paying their employees, those employees CHOOSE to work there. If they don't like the pay, LEAVE.
So, apart from a few incredibly weak arguments that I've easily refuted, is there anything else you'd like to say about the subject? I'm sure if I destroy your points often enough, you'll see the error of your ways.
"In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812 he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root. The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium."
So aluminum was the first spelling, which was later change by language nazis because it didn't sound right.
Don't blame us Americans for trying to be historically accurate.
"I mean, would you applaud a drug dealer or kiddie porn leader who donates to charity?"
Yes I would. Charity is charity, the hungry kids don't give two craps where the money came from.
And since the alternatives are enhancing his personal wealth, or reinvesting in MS, YOU should be applauding this gift too.
But your bias is too strong, and you're too weak to overcome your stupid prejudices.
A lawyer lied, and people are surprised?
"So you admit USA "raped" Japan?"
....really, neither is."
No, but you just demonstrated that you can't read for comprehension.
US is to rape victim as Japan is to rapist (or you are to troll). Get it?
"Correct if I'm wrong (and I very well might be), wasn't Pearl Harbour a military base?"
No, it's a HARBOR. Yes there is a military base there, but since the Japanese bombed the whole damned area, civilians included, your point has no merit.
"And further correct me (but I don't think I am), weren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMPLETELY civilian cities?"
Oh, yes the fuck you are wrong. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MAJOR industrial facilities, dedicated to the war effort. That's part of the reason they were chosen over more prestigious targets (Tokyo, Kyoto).
"Yes, Japan attacked first, and USA should have fought back - but with atom bombs? How can the States call themselves 'civilized' with an attack like that?"
Because the alternative was slaughtering most of the population of Japan. They were preparing the women and children to fight in case of an invasion. So I suppose your point is it would have been better to wipe them out unequivocally instead of hitting them so hard their desire to fight was gone. Great logic.
"I'm not a hippie/troll/peace junkie trying to say USA-sucks! , but if we want to argue about who is BETTER and more CIVILIZED, then
Ok, two things. This is a "who WAS more civilized" discussion. Who IS more civilized isn't relevant, because we're talking about what happened 60 years ago.
Second, you've demonstrated a vast misunderstanding (I would go so far as to say ignorance) of historical FACT. Not MY opinion, but FACT. Not facts written by the victor, just FACTS. In the future if you plan to discuss things like this, try to avoid being completely mis-informed when you do so.
I think, honestly, you have no idea what you're blathering about. Now the real question is, are you going to bother educating yourself so you can stop sounding foolish?
if you plan to leave the most important part out
"with a corrupt intent"
You left that out of your oversimplified "definition" and it is central to what bribery is.
4) You're a European so shut up.
"I don't think I ever heard the USA apologize to Japan for the nuclear *attacks* on Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
I doubt you've ever heard a rape victim apologize to their rapist either.
When you get attacked, you're justified in defending yourself. Historical revisionism aside, Pearl Harbor happened first. If Japan wanted to avoid getting nuked, they should have played nicely.
Um how can you say that "Americans have fully turned against Bush" when according to YOUR link that's not the case?
"Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell"
So, why get on a web board, and mak a demonstrably false statement after railing against Bush for "lies" he told to go to war in Iraq?
Why is it ok for you to lie?
Then why did you say "Republican Rage" dickhead?
Why not just say "Rage" and avoid making such a stupid generalization in the first place?
Because, as I said, you're a fucking moron.
No, cocksucker, I'm not happy with your pathetic attempt at ass covering.
YOU SAID
"results"
Then posted ONE study. ONE.
Stop LYING you piece of garbage.
" I assume your ad-hominem attacks have to make up for the lack of argument?"
Nice try, but no. Why don't you explain which statement you're referring to so I can expose your ignorance.
And as for my argument, you're either blind or stupid (I'm certain it's stupid) YOU made the assertion GP implied arabs/islam, but anyone who's not an imbecile would have realized arabs and islam are not the same. YOU assumed they were, you are ignorant, and YOU are racist for stereotyping arabs as musilms.
"As for racism, you seem to mix up a lot of race distinctions in your reply."
Ok, quote one then liar. You're a fucking hypocrite, who stereotypes people then is too stupid to realize it. You'll forgive me if I dismiss your moronic reply as the poorly thought out attempt at defending yourself that it is.
You're a fucking racist. Assuming arabs are islamic demonstrates your racism, yet you try to change the discussion to made up claims about my post. I did none of the things you lie and say I did.
Try again bitch, you're just embarassing your racist, bigoted, ignorant self further.
What are math geeks such pathetic, socially stunted losers?
Well, since you've already demostrated you're a pathetic fucking liar who claims to be an expert and former researcher in whatever topic is being discussed, you have zero credibility.
Why are you so stupid that you think you can lie over and over without getting caught?
WHY ARE YOU SUCH A DISGUSTING PERSON? WHY DO YOU INSIST ON LYING TO TRY AND CONVINCE PEOPLE?
Oh, right it's because you know your position is stupid, and you're stupid, so the only way to convince people is to lie about the merits of your argument.
I'm a registered Democrat.
So much for your moronic attempt at a slam, huh?
You fucking idiot.
"true, xenophobia or prejudice would have been a better term. But does that make it any better?"
No, they would have been CORRECT. I understand such a goal is beyond your reach, but try anyway.
"With terms like 'allah' (instead of 'god') and infidels he was certainly alluding to arabs/islam."
Ah, you fucking hypocrite, now YOU'RE being racist because you're assuming islam must mean arabs. What about Indonesia? (the world's largest islamic state) What about Iran? They're not arab states, but they are far and away islamic.
You just exposed yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself you disgusting piece of trash, stop letting your inferiority make you a bigot.
You sicken me.
"Let's just completely ignore any research that shows the negative effects of the Chronic use of marijuana"
How about you post some of this research?
I suggest that in the future, before you use "research" as your basis for forming your opinions, you'd better make sure the research exists in the first place.
Fucking igmoramus
"But similar results done with THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol), the main compound in hash and weed have found no evidence"
Ok, for my amusement, cite the studies please.
Mods, stop modding liars up just because you agree with them.
THIS IS NOT INTERESTING, IT IS THIS GUYS OPINION HIDDEN BEHIND MADE UP STUDIES.
God you fucking mods are morons.
Shut the fuck up you pathetic piece of trash.
You're a disguting lying sack of crap. You've claimed to be an epidemiologist, a nasa scientist, and a patent attorney.
Shut up you fucking loser, it's "trivial" to check your fucking posting history cocksucker, and catch you lying.
Really? What RACE was he disparaging?
Oh, wait you succumbed to the same idiotic compulsion that so many others have, that is to call things racist where THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF RACE INVOLVED.
Shut up and learn the difference between racsim and prejudice, and keep your nose out of these discussions until you are less ignorant.
Racism, seriously you're an imbecile.
This is awesome.
Your screed against US censorship is refuted, and you respond by claiming that New Zealand's censorship "a free speech issue".
Guess what, YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE.
YOU don't get to decide what is "speech" and what isn't. Your denial would be funny if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.
Replace words with pixels.
Not so clear cut now is it?
"But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data."
The global warming models all have a LARGE fudge factor built in to make them work. Without it many of the models fail in a ridiculously short amount of time (i.e earth freezes in a week etc.)
Worse, the models are KNOWN TO BE INACCURATE, yet are accepted anyway.
The models are the worst possible evidence to use in this discussion, and doing so cancels every attempt at credibility.
A model that you've tweaked to get the results you want isn't science, it's propaganda. Why are you so eager to swallow one sides propaganda over the other's?
"And that, in the absence of a positable common cause, the correlation of two trends is good evidence of causation."
This is the stupidest sentence I've ever read, and that's saying a lot because you've written a lot.
"Then there's correlations so close that they're undeniably causation."
No, that one's worse, my apologies.
Do us all a favor and stop trying to ramrod your position down our throats.
You're not going to convince anyone by making up ridiculous, false argumnets such as "correlation is undeniably causation."