That just means dumbasses are abusing the word terrorist. Like when we hear a Hilter analogy whenever we see people being ostensibly twarted from their precious goals.
The Tigers and the INLA are both nationalist groups. Atheism is not a defining characteristic, and the vast majority of members were (respectively) Hindu and Catholic. Having Marxist-Leninist leanings does not automagically mean atheism in all cases.
The Tigers and the INLA are both nationalist groups. Atheism is not a defining characteristic, and the vast majority of members were (respectively) Hindu and Catholic. Just being Marxist-Leninist, doesn't mean that they are automatically in all cases atheists.
Which likely means the contractor delivered exactly what they were contracted to deliver, it's just that the government didn't know what it actually needed when it wrote the requirements and now wants to blame them for the fact that the resultant product can't fulfill its purpose.
And you know this from your experience working in companies like CGI? Well, that's were I used to work, and they have an amazing legal and sales team. Programming... not so much. My first-hand experience of *different* government contracts is: the government was handcuffed by their own rules, and CGI knew it, and moved in for the kill. Easy. Money.
There is a problem to be fixed, for sure, and it probably stems from the way policy is written, and legal precedents. So not that easy.
I happen to know something about fascism. It's not really a left or right concept. As you correctly point out, these days it is just boo word to throw at people when you feel victimized for not getting your way. But lets look at the characteristics of fascism, and see where the chips fall these days:
Here are some fascist traits more associated with conservative politics:
Here are some fascist traits associated with liberal politics:
Broadened mandate for government intervention in the economy
Anti-materialist -- but qualified that this is really not like liberal econuts -- since fascists are supposed to be sustained by their ideological commitment.
Here are some fascist traits that are identifiably both liberal and conservative (or a third rail in the two party system):
the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens.
Here are some fascist traits that are neither liberal nor conservative:
endorsing terror to gain political power
the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.
DrHat, you are an ideologue, so don't bother me with logical contortions about how the Dems are really the more fascist of the two parties. But if there a legitimate argument, grounded in what Karl Rove pejoratively called the reality based community, then I'm all ears, because I love actually knowing things.
Yes, so horrible that the for-profit healthcare system in this country created so many life saving & extending drugs and treatments
Yep, the USA had teh best healthcare system in the world, and it has now been ruined. It provided by far the best outcomes to the most people at the cheapest price, and nobody in the world could do anything remotely as good. And did you hear that we're exceptional? Just fyi.
Then you must be a conservative. The insurers are deliberately selling you guys worse plans than the Dems. You should complain more loudly about the unfair treatment.
The Canadian healthcare system is being nickle and dimed to death, but is still vastly superior to the USA. I know this from personal experience, and also 2nd hand from doctors I know personally that have worked in both systems. Just my 2 cents.
Really now, I have to ask if you're being paid by OFA or Media Matters after two statements like that.
Media matters pays my rent. That's why I believe what I believe. You want your rent paid for you, then you just have to jump on board and change your views. It really is that easy. We're rich over hear, bought off by our corporate overlords. I know conservatives don't have any corporate sugar daddy's pumping money into think-tanks, but that is really your bad, since paying people to produce political material is really the best way to carry on a balanced and objective discussion, since the facts always win in the end, and propaganda has no effect on smart people like me.
He's not listening. Having *finally* found what seems like a legitimate weapon to beat the DNC up with, it *must* be true that his healthcare plan is worse, and that there is *nothing* to be done about it, because of Obama tyranny, and benghazi, and the faked moon landings.
It IS better for the DNC as it provides a nice new entitlement to ensnare unsuspecting weak individuals into a lifelong servitude of voting for the candidates the Party Dictates they vote for.
The GOP grassroots are really superior in many ways. Most of the grass roots of the GOP are on medicare and social security, but for some reason, even though they suck on the government teat, it is terribly dangerous if *other* people get any government service for the reasons you've already accurately conveyed.
I wonder how much tax credits the federal government gets from GM and its satellite industries? They have 217,000 employees, and $150 billion in revenue. That means about $140 billion is flowing out of the company each year in the form of goods and services bought from other companies, and the flows on to still more companies. So more than $10 billion per year is possible.
How much money did the government lose on TARP? How much has been repaid to date?
These are simple facts that you can look up.
As for what would have happened without TARP... well I suspect that you'd disagree with just about every economist and business leader in the country, but I'm sure you know best.
Comparing Enron and GM is like comparing a dot-bomb-internet start-up with IBM. Both in size and substance. And Enron was up to criminal malfeasance, which cost the California economy $40 billion. That is 33% more than the total remaining liability to the government for the TARP bailouts, including the $10 billion GM write-down.
Even if GM went out of business, which it wouldn't have, someone else would have bought the resources and done something with them.
Like in all the ghost towns across all of America, where some factory closed, and then some "we built this" job creator moves in and makes use of whats left behind. It worked in Flint Michigan, which is now booming, because GM left.
And how many jobs were never created because the US government interfered? We'll never know.
GM left Flint Michigan, and look how many jobs were created there in its wake! You're dealing with a highly imaginative intellectual argument which the vast majority of academic economists disagree. I suppose that you are not interested in learning something about economics, since you already have all the answers.
Haha, the government only bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion, and got $40 billion back. The entire liability for the entire bail-out program (wall street and main street) is currently $30 billion, and will become smaller in the future. It is possible that there will be a net profit, and that is excluding any good that came from stopping the dominoes from falling, and sending the entire country into a depression.
If you're against the bailout, then the $600 billion figure is money instantly flushed down the toilet. That the government has (to-date) only take a $30 billion hit just doesn't fit the narrative. I'm sure if your average "intellectual" libertarian actually groked that, they'd make some counter-factual, like the economy would have recovered faster if all the companies just went bankrupt. The fundamental problem is that the political mind does not *want* do understand something. It's all about being "right" and getting your way, and feeling victimised and outraged by the "big-government-libturds" with their bailout.
Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this.
I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
You are free to NOT exercise your basic rights. I'll do whatever the hell I want, thank you.
And this is why I find gun advocates despicable. I have a right to be free from gun violence. But you don't give a shit about that do you. It's all about YOUR rights, and others be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is to say: the general electorate. That's what the studies are showing us.
That just means dumbasses are abusing the word terrorist. Like when we hear a Hilter analogy whenever we see people being ostensibly twarted from their precious goals.
The Tigers and the INLA are both nationalist groups. Atheism is not a defining characteristic, and the vast majority of members were (respectively) Hindu and Catholic. Having Marxist-Leninist leanings does not automagically mean atheism in all cases.
The Tigers and the INLA are both nationalist groups. Atheism is not a defining characteristic, and the vast majority of members were (respectively) Hindu and Catholic. Just being Marxist-Leninist, doesn't mean that they are automatically in all cases atheists.
Which likely means the contractor delivered exactly what they were contracted to deliver, it's just that the government didn't know what it actually needed when it wrote the requirements and now wants to blame them for the fact that the resultant product can't fulfill its purpose.
And you know this from your experience working in companies like CGI? Well, that's were I used to work, and they have an amazing legal and sales team. Programming... not so much. My first-hand experience of *different* government contracts is: the government was handcuffed by their own rules, and CGI knew it, and moved in for the kill. Easy. Money.
There is a problem to be fixed, for sure, and it probably stems from the way policy is written, and legal precedents. So not that easy.
Here are some fascist traits more associated with conservative politics:
Here are some fascist traits associated with liberal politics:
Here are some fascist traits that are identifiably both liberal and conservative (or a third rail in the two party system):
Here are some fascist traits that are neither liberal nor conservative:
DrHat, you are an ideologue, so don't bother me with logical contortions about how the Dems are really the more fascist of the two parties. But if there a legitimate argument, grounded in what Karl Rove pejoratively called the reality based community, then I'm all ears, because I love actually knowing things.
Yes, so horrible that the for-profit healthcare system in this country created so many life saving & extending drugs and treatments
Yep, the USA had teh best healthcare system in the world, and it has now been ruined. It provided by far the best outcomes to the most people at the cheapest price, and nobody in the world could do anything remotely as good. And did you hear that we're exceptional? Just fyi.
Then you must be a conservative. The insurers are deliberately selling you guys worse plans than the Dems. You should complain more loudly about the unfair treatment.
The Canadian healthcare system is being nickle and dimed to death, but is still vastly superior to the USA. I know this from personal experience, and also 2nd hand from doctors I know personally that have worked in both systems. Just my 2 cents.
Really now, I have to ask if you're being paid by OFA or Media Matters after two statements like that.
Media matters pays my rent. That's why I believe what I believe. You want your rent paid for you, then you just have to jump on board and change your views. It really is that easy. We're rich over hear, bought off by our corporate overlords. I know conservatives don't have any corporate sugar daddy's pumping money into think-tanks, but that is really your bad, since paying people to produce political material is really the best way to carry on a balanced and objective discussion, since the facts always win in the end, and propaganda has no effect on smart people like me.
He's not listening. Having *finally* found what seems like a legitimate weapon to beat the DNC up with, it *must* be true that his healthcare plan is worse, and that there is *nothing* to be done about it, because of Obama tyranny, and benghazi, and the faked moon landings.
I mean, a conservative policy wonk who disagrees is just a RINO, and we know they are just democrats in disguise.
It IS better for the DNC as it provides a nice new entitlement to ensnare unsuspecting weak individuals into a lifelong servitude of voting for the candidates the Party Dictates they vote for.
The GOP grassroots are really superior in many ways. Most of the grass roots of the GOP are on medicare and social security, but for some reason, even though they suck on the government teat, it is terribly dangerous if *other* people get any government service for the reasons you've already accurately conveyed.
The beauty of unix is that you can write scripts to handle that stuff, including backups.
I wonder how much tax credits the federal government gets from GM and its satellite industries? They have 217,000 employees, and $150 billion in revenue. That means about $140 billion is flowing out of the company each year in the form of goods and services bought from other companies, and the flows on to still more companies. So more than $10 billion per year is possible.
How much money did the government lose on TARP? How much has been repaid to date?
These are simple facts that you can look up.
As for what would have happened without TARP... well I suspect that you'd disagree with just about every economist and business leader in the country, but I'm sure you know best.
But the collapse of Enron
Comparing Enron and GM is like comparing a dot-bomb-internet start-up with IBM. Both in size and substance. And Enron was up to criminal malfeasance, which cost the California economy $40 billion. That is 33% more than the total remaining liability to the government for the TARP bailouts, including the $10 billion GM write-down.
Even if GM went out of business, which it wouldn't have, someone else would have bought the resources and done something with them.
Like in all the ghost towns across all of America, where some factory closed, and then some "we built this" job creator moves in and makes use of whats left behind. It worked in Flint Michigan, which is now booming, because GM left.
And how many jobs were never created because the US government interfered? We'll never know.
GM left Flint Michigan, and look how many jobs were created there in its wake! You're dealing with a highly imaginative intellectual argument which the vast majority of academic economists disagree. I suppose that you are not interested in learning something about economics, since you already have all the answers.
Haha, the government only bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion, and got $40 billion back. The entire liability for the entire bail-out program (wall street and main street) is currently $30 billion, and will become smaller in the future. It is possible that there will be a net profit, and that is excluding any good that came from stopping the dominoes from falling, and sending the entire country into a depression.
Here is a completely list of companies that got money, and how much has been repaid.
Browse through it. Take your time. Note the net loss to the government to date.
If you're against the bailout, then the $600 billion figure is money instantly flushed down the toilet. That the government has (to-date) only take a $30 billion hit just doesn't fit the narrative. I'm sure if your average "intellectual" libertarian actually groked that, they'd make some counter-factual, like the economy would have recovered faster if all the companies just went bankrupt. The fundamental problem is that the political mind does not *want* do understand something. It's all about being "right" and getting your way, and feeling victimised and outraged by the "big-government-libturds" with their bailout.
You may be wrong yourself. If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian. The USA has a much higher gun death rate than other developed countries, and when you look within the USA itself, you find that Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide., or put simply more guns, more crime.
All of the above citations go to original or academic sources. So what could be going on?
Well, firstly, the NRA attempts to stop scientists from studying gun violence. (In a similar vein, the junk-food industry tries to limit the study of the health effects of sugar.)
Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this.
I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
The guy who sells you the illegal fully-automatic weapon can sell you the ammo for it
I love (read hate) how political discussions always tend to focus around highly unrealistic and imaginative scenarios.
No you want it so that only criminals can have guns.
Haha, doesn't work like that in the rest of the world.
You are free to NOT exercise your basic rights. I'll do whatever the hell I want, thank you.
And this is why I find gun advocates despicable. I have a right to be free from gun violence. But you don't give a shit about that do you. It's all about YOUR rights, and others be damned.