No, he said empathy lead to T4 (mercy killings- killing people because you think it's the right thing to do) which lead to genocide everywhere.
I know you want to make Glenn Beck out to be some evil genuis that you can love to hate but it is very clear, there was a step that led to a step that led to what you want to rant about. But ignoring the step before the step is like saying owning a computer will expose you to online porn and illegal downloading without ever getting internet access. There is a step- going online- that leads to the porn and free movies first. similarly, empathy lead to euthanasia. Euthanasia lead to widespread genocide. It's in black and white and if you have trouble reading, you can click the media matters link and watch the clip.
I do not think you understand. The federal government does not and never has had the power to regulate marriage. In other words, the law would be unconstitutional as soon as it dictated something to the states that the states are in charge of. The federal government cannot just make a law and enforce it. The federal law against murder cannot even be enforced unless it crosses a state line or somehow happens on federal government property. Do you understand that? It is a jurisdictional problem. The federal government is not in the business of marriage, the states are.
Ok, I figured you didn't pay attention during the debates. That's why I said if you payed attention and you acknowledged, you did until you couldn't bother watching any more.
But I just explained to you and anyone else who cares to read what the plan was and how it was going to be done. To say he is refusing to state his plan is simply a total disregard of the facts on your part. It would seem you would still be crying he won't tell you years after it works if it does work. His plan is to put an outline in front of congress and tell them to do the leg work on it. it can be done, whether is works is another story.
I don't exactly get those dog crate jokes. Where I come from, its nothing to see dogs in the back of a pickup truck. Its nothing to see them with their head stuck out the window. It's nothing to see them on motorcycle side cars. Dogs enjoy being in the wind. Whats the problem?
Actually, I think Romney's past shows he is more democrat then republican. The idea that Romney is somehow vastly different than when he was governor amazes me.
Why would that be? You do not loose all property rights to your data in the cloud. You just don't get the ability to treat it like it is in your building completely under your control.
And no, I don't think the government trying to sidestep the constitution is a good thing. I just don't see it as some validation to violate other laws.
I'm not missing anything at all. It doesn't say what you think it says and you are ignoring reality. Companies are moving jobs over seas to save money on wages and taxes. That is undisputed and a claim made by just about all parties. The tax savings portion is even a battle cry by democrats where they want to someone penalize companies who move jobs over seas through taxes. That is certainly something that impacts economic growth.
Now the study says if anything, lower taxes correlates with income concentration in the upper end of income earners. It does not however say that the poor get poorer. You are completely making that portion up. Now, lowering tax rates is a mechanism for rich people to retain more of their money. That part is explained. But if it doesn't correlate to economic growth, then it has absolutely no impact on the poor who are dependent on economic growth.
Now, what am I missing? I'll recap for you. The study says the tax rate impacts nothing but the amount of money the rich keeps. What is taxing the rich going to do as the great plan? You see, both are full of Bullshit.
Perhaps you should read what was said and pay attention to the real world. The defense of marriage act is toothless as far as marriages are concerned as you well know gay marriage is happening in at least 5 states. And the political climate will not allow either to be passed today at all.
Besides, the DOMA is about be invalidated by the courts specifically because the feds do not have any control over marriage. The only thing that would save it would be the supreme court saying that the sex of married persons is not discrimination.
Either act is unimportant at this point. The feds simply do not have any business in marriage.
I find it interesting that a google search could have turned up whether the article was legit or not. Yet you wanted to dismiss it out of hand because your google finger was broken.
Why would it have to be the president rigging the vote and not some supporter? Granted, the president would benefit if votes were improperly cast for him, but the reality of the situation is that becomes the reason why it is a concern if its an equipment problem or deliberate act. Someone is getting a vote illegitimately. Remember, these machines are easy to hack, we heard all about it when Bush was winning elections. Now we are hearing that they are temperamental and need adjusting.
Beck said that empathy leads to bad decisions and that leads to bad decisions
Finally â" well, he wasn't the president, he was the chancellor â" Hitler, decided that it was the only empathetic thing to do, is to put this child down and put him out of his suffering. It was the beginning of the T4, which led to genocide everywhere. It was the beginning of it. Empathy leads you to very bad decisions many times.
They will sue the government claiming a taking of their product. this would have more weight in the US where there are constitutional requirements for just compensation.
It also would never happen in the US as certain leaders in the free software movement decided to take political stands and the opposition parties would claim graft or some other BS and refuse to support it by default.
As for your client, I agree. As for the perfect plan, I also agree but it has the benefit of exposing the representatives and senators which have way more ultimate control over this crap then any one man in government anyways. I don't see a good house cleaning as a bad thing. It would definitely/should cause them to drop their supposed corporate overlords to save their jobs. however, I'm not against politicians looking out for businesses either. We need business to have jobs to have employment and a thriving economy. It's a balancing act that must play out else we will have nothing.
So what, you are going to prove my point? The article said it was released to only politicians and their aids and it was up to them to release it to other entities. After several weeks, it was removed and a democrat got his panties in a bunch. The entire it was buried revolved around it's closed access being removed, not copies in the wild.
No, but when the press asks a simple and direct question like "was the Republican party responsible for the takedown" that they'd answer. They haven't. They refuse to comment.
Perhaps they don't know why it was taken down and perhaps it wasn't taken down because of them- at least not as a party aspiration. People who are republican can act independent of any concerted efforts.
Who complained? The Republicans haven't said they did it. That's what my complaint was. Nobody has come forward as the complainer.
Actually, the article mentions specific complaints by republicans.I think you are confusing not admitting to demanding it to be taken down with something of a less nature in complaining of it's bias which is on the record and no republican is running from.
Exactly what I said, the complaints are not about the methodology, other than "we don't like the answer, so we assert the methodology is flawed, though we have no specific problem with the methodology."
Actually, you should read the article again. FTFA
Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators âoeraised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.â Mr. Stewart added that people outside of Congress had also criticized the study and that officials at the research service âoedecided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.â
âoeThere were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,â said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committeeâ(TM)s Republicans. âoeWe relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.â
And of course everything negative being said about it is attributed to democrats or people working for democrats. How you got that out of the article is left to the imagination I guess. At least if I want to put it politely that is.
There is already a defense of marriage act signed into law by a democrat president. A single president cannot change anything without the support of congress. That won't happen in today's political climate. At to the effect of that, its likely not to mean anything because states can simply override it by local law. This is because marriage is a state issue not a federal one. pinning a federal election on a marriage anything is a lost cause.
The article said it was out and open to everyone. It wasn't even open to the public in it's original hosting, just politicians and it was a democrat politician who is whining about this as he provides a copy to the press.
No, it's clear that malice is at work. Why else would you be upset that something is removed from a location that you couldn't access anyways.
You better just look around some more and think about taking a refresher course in sanity. The reason why you and a few democrats only know about their great economic plans if because they are as full of shit as the republicans think they are not. They know when they speak loud about it, they get smacked with reality just as badly. So they whisper it and people like you think they are geniuses and will never vote for anyone else.
Just so you understand, they are both full of it. They just sound different and perhaps have different approaches, but nothing more solid to stand on. The great democrat plan I've heard seems to be tax the rich. This study says it does nothing to help the economy. What am I missing?
lol.. you expect republican congress critters to be slashdot posters? Democrats congress critters might when it's election time and there is a need to astroturf. Do you expect some spokesman to come out and say "we requested this to be taken down"?
How about it was taken down because complaints about it appearing bias was actually true enough to at least on the surface make that appearance. Its methodology is obviously in question as it says there is no economic change with the top tax rates but somehow there is a magical process happening that lower rates concentrate the wealth in the rich and takes from the poor. And if the difference in the income disparage is the amount of taxes the top earners make, in can't be the difference in some mythical magical tax rate because it wouldn't somehow put money into the lower end earner's pockets.
But here is something to wrap you mind around, in economic good times, tax rates don't really matter. It's not until a slow economy that it matter and then only to the extend that other costs of doing business can be mitigated. The biggest costs will be the costs of energy and that is one thing that you can look back and actually pin to any growth or slowing (within a year or so) we have had. Energy costs has the most of an impact.
You do realize that Romney will not be able to do anything on Roe or Gay marriage right? Those are two areas the federal government simply does not have any power over let alone a single president.
As for your end medicare, he said during the debates when challenged that if the government turned out to be the choice for medicare insurance under the voucher program, he had no problem with it. Maybe ending medicare as you know it and giving the people a choice is what you really meant.
Either way, it seems that some of your understandings about this is not well thought out with some misinformation mixed in.
If you payed attention during the debates, you would know his plan is mostly an outline with a few specific changes that he expects congress to achieve. He wants to largely follow the simpson bowles commission with limiting raising taxes and increasing the tax revenue by increasing the over all revenue that will be taxed.
Its no more vegue then Obama's plan is had anyone paid attention to it. The striking part of it is that he wants congress to work together on making it happen instead of putting something in front of them and saying support it. I personally think that is a good thing, perhaps it would get back to the Tip Oneal and New Gingrich style of congresses where they actually did something beneficial for the country and not a party.
One of the problems with Romney's plan is that he wants the details to be worked out in a bipartisan manor by the sitting congress. The details on the cap would likely not cover medical expenses in a situation like that but we wouldn't know until congress put something forward. Most likely it would be attached to the hardship rules allowing distributions. However, if his IRA was a ROTH, it wouldn't have counted as income either. I guess there is no replacement for a good accountant and financial planning on matters like this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he said empathy lead to T4 (mercy killings- killing people because you think it's the right thing to do) which lead to genocide everywhere.
I know you want to make Glenn Beck out to be some evil genuis that you can love to hate but it is very clear, there was a step that led to a step that led to what you want to rant about. But ignoring the step before the step is like saying owning a computer will expose you to online porn and illegal downloading without ever getting internet access. There is a step- going online- that leads to the porn and free movies first. similarly, empathy lead to euthanasia. Euthanasia lead to widespread genocide. It's in black and white and if you have trouble reading, you can click the media matters link and watch the clip.
I do not think you understand. The federal government does not and never has had the power to regulate marriage. In other words, the law would be unconstitutional as soon as it dictated something to the states that the states are in charge of. The federal government cannot just make a law and enforce it. The federal law against murder cannot even be enforced unless it crosses a state line or somehow happens on federal government property. Do you understand that? It is a jurisdictional problem. The federal government is not in the business of marriage, the states are.
Ok, I figured you didn't pay attention during the debates. That's why I said if you payed attention and you acknowledged, you did until you couldn't bother watching any more.
But I just explained to you and anyone else who cares to read what the plan was and how it was going to be done. To say he is refusing to state his plan is simply a total disregard of the facts on your part. It would seem you would still be crying he won't tell you years after it works if it does work. His plan is to put an outline in front of congress and tell them to do the leg work on it. it can be done, whether is works is another story.
I don't exactly get those dog crate jokes. Where I come from, its nothing to see dogs in the back of a pickup truck. Its nothing to see them with their head stuck out the window. It's nothing to see them on motorcycle side cars. Dogs enjoy being in the wind. Whats the problem?
Actually, I think Romney's past shows he is more democrat then republican. The idea that Romney is somehow vastly different than when he was governor amazes me.
Why would that be? You do not loose all property rights to your data in the cloud. You just don't get the ability to treat it like it is in your building completely under your control.
And no, I don't think the government trying to sidestep the constitution is a good thing. I just don't see it as some validation to violate other laws.
I'm not missing anything at all. It doesn't say what you think it says and you are ignoring reality. Companies are moving jobs over seas to save money on wages and taxes. That is undisputed and a claim made by just about all parties. The tax savings portion is even a battle cry by democrats where they want to someone penalize companies who move jobs over seas through taxes. That is certainly something that impacts economic growth.
Now the study says if anything, lower taxes correlates with income concentration in the upper end of income earners. It does not however say that the poor get poorer. You are completely making that portion up. Now, lowering tax rates is a mechanism for rich people to retain more of their money. That part is explained. But if it doesn't correlate to economic growth, then it has absolutely no impact on the poor who are dependent on economic growth.
Now, what am I missing? I'll recap for you. The study says the tax rate impacts nothing but the amount of money the rich keeps. What is taxing the rich going to do as the great plan? You see, both are full of Bullshit.
Perhaps you should read what was said and pay attention to the real world. The defense of marriage act is toothless as far as marriages are concerned as you well know gay marriage is happening in at least 5 states. And the political climate will not allow either to be passed today at all.
Besides, the DOMA is about be invalidated by the courts specifically because the feds do not have any control over marriage. The only thing that would save it would be the supreme court saying that the sex of married persons is not discrimination.
Either act is unimportant at this point. The feds simply do not have any business in marriage.
Buut it is so much easier keeping my worldview when I ignore sources I know I will disagree with.
BTW, you can google and find these stories at the Denver post, Columbus dispatch, some greenborro site and a host of others.
I find it interesting that a google search could have turned up whether the article was legit or not. Yet you wanted to dismiss it out of hand because your google finger was broken.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/11/02/problems-pop-up-as-election-day-draw-nears.html
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21909715/gop-cites-voting-machine-errors
http://greensboro-nc.com/news/article/more-folks-report-selecting-romney-on-voting-machine-but-choice-displays-obama-wbtw-myrtle-beach-and-florence-sc
Why would it have to be the president rigging the vote and not some supporter? Granted, the president would benefit if votes were improperly cast for him, but the reality of the situation is that becomes the reason why it is a concern if its an equipment problem or deliberate act. Someone is getting a vote illegitimately. Remember, these machines are easy to hack, we heard all about it when Bush was winning elections. Now we are hearing that they are temperamental and need adjusting.
If it is vengeance and not justice, you should have an easy way to get rid of them- like voting someone else in.
It only makes sense when you get a trial by your peers that you get to vote on the judges to some degree too. Not every judge is voted on.
Not exactly.
Beck said that empathy leads to bad decisions and that leads to bad decisions
is what he said. T4 btw was the euthanasia program carried out by Germany leading up to and during WWII. It was part of the Eugenics program that Hitler was fond of. you can watch the statement as said with context here
http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/05/26/beck-cites-hitler-example-to-state-that-empathy/150513
T4 was not the holocaust.
They will sue the government claiming a taking of their product. this would have more weight in the US where there are constitutional requirements for just compensation.
It also would never happen in the US as certain leaders in the
free software movement decided to take political stands and the opposition parties would claim graft or some other BS and refuse to support it by default.
As for your client, I agree. As for the perfect plan, I also agree but it has the benefit of exposing the representatives and senators which have way more ultimate control over this crap then any one man in government anyways. I don't see a good house cleaning as a bad thing. It would definitely/should cause them to drop their supposed corporate overlords to save their jobs. however, I'm not against politicians looking out for businesses either. We need business to have jobs to have employment and a thriving economy. It's a balancing act that must play out else we will have nothing.
I have to apologize. I agree with you entirely on this but do not carry multiple accounts so I can't return the favor.
So what, you are going to prove my point? The article said it was released to only politicians and their aids and it was up to them to release it to other entities. After several weeks, it was removed and a democrat got his panties in a bunch. The entire it was buried revolved around it's closed access being removed, not copies in the wild.
Perhaps they don't know why it was taken down and perhaps it wasn't taken down because of them- at least not as a party aspiration. People who are republican can act independent of any concerted efforts.
Actually, the article mentions specific complaints by republicans.I think you are confusing not admitting to demanding it to be taken down with something of a less nature in complaining of it's bias which is on the record and no republican is running from.
Actually, you should read the article again. FTFA
And of course everything negative being said about it is attributed to democrats or people working for democrats. How you got that out of the article is left to the imagination I guess. At least if I want to put it politely that is.
There is already a defense of marriage act signed into law by a democrat president. A single president cannot change anything without the support of congress. That won't happen in today's political climate. At to the effect of that, its likely not to mean anything because states can simply override it by local law. This is because marriage is a state issue not a federal one. pinning a federal election on a marriage anything is a lost cause.
The article said it was out and open to everyone. It wasn't even open to the public in it's original hosting, just politicians and it was a democrat politician who is whining about this as he provides a copy to the press.
No, it's clear that malice is at work. Why else would you be upset that something is removed from a location that you couldn't access anyways.
You better just look around some more and think about taking a refresher course in sanity. The reason why you and a few democrats only know about their great economic plans if because they are as full of shit as the republicans think they are not. They know when they speak loud about it, they get smacked with reality just as badly. So they whisper it and people like you think they are geniuses and will never vote for anyone else.
Just so you understand, they are both full of it. They just sound different and perhaps have different approaches, but nothing more solid to stand on. The great democrat plan I've heard seems to be tax the rich. This study says it does nothing to help the economy. What am I missing?
lol.. you expect republican congress critters to be slashdot posters? Democrats congress critters might when it's election time and there is a need to astroturf. Do you expect some spokesman to come out and say "we requested this to be taken down"?
How about it was taken down because complaints about it appearing bias was actually true enough to at least on the surface make that appearance. Its methodology is obviously in question as it says there is no economic change with the top tax rates but somehow there is a magical process happening that lower rates concentrate the wealth in the rich and takes from the poor. And if the difference in the income disparage is the amount of taxes the top earners make, in can't be the difference in some mythical magical tax rate because it wouldn't somehow put money into the lower end earner's pockets.
But here is something to wrap you mind around, in economic good times, tax rates don't really matter. It's not until a slow economy that it matter and then only to the extend that other costs of doing business can be mitigated. The biggest costs will be the costs of energy and that is one thing that you can look back and actually pin to any growth or slowing (within a year or so) we have had. Energy costs has the most of an impact.
You do realize that Romney will not be able to do anything on Roe or Gay marriage right? Those are two areas the federal government simply does not have any power over let alone a single president.
As for your end medicare, he said during the debates when challenged that if the government turned out to be the choice for medicare insurance under the voucher program, he had no problem with it. Maybe ending medicare as you know it and giving the people a choice is what you really meant.
Either way, it seems that some of your understandings about this is not well thought out with some misinformation mixed in.
If you payed attention during the debates, you would know his plan is mostly an outline with a few specific changes that he expects congress to achieve. He wants to largely follow the simpson bowles commission with limiting raising taxes and increasing the tax revenue by increasing the over all revenue that will be taxed.
Its no more vegue then Obama's plan is had anyone paid attention to it. The striking part of it is that he wants congress to work together on making it happen instead of putting something in front of them and saying support it. I personally think that is a good thing, perhaps it would get back to the Tip Oneal and New Gingrich style of congresses where they actually did something beneficial for the country and not a party.
One of the problems with Romney's plan is that he wants the details to be worked out in a bipartisan manor by the sitting congress. The details on the cap would likely not cover medical expenses in a situation like that but we wouldn't know until congress put something forward. Most likely it would be attached to the hardship rules allowing distributions. However, if his IRA was a ROTH, it wouldn't have counted as income either. I guess there is no replacement for a good accountant and financial planning on matters like this.