Third parties are ignored because they would be completely ineffectual if they happened to win. In order to get any agenda accomplished in Washington, you need the support of congress. No third party will have that because unlike the two major parties who are a household name, the third parties are simply fringe groups with axes to grind. The best they can do without doing the legwork to take local seats and state government seats in order to become established enough to sit in congress in regularly sufficient numbers, is to influence policy by making something popular enough to be picked up b one of the major parties.
Third parties are more or less issue parties. The major parties are big ten parties. Then encompass a lot of everything in moderate enough levels not to upset their bases. If something ever becomes popular enough that it looks like a shift in base would happen, the big tent parties simply incorporate it into their platform. Now we are back to third parties having little support again. Without a big tent platform and a ground up name recognition, third parties are more or less a waste of time for most people.
Putin blamed the protests near the elections on the US (hillary actually) and was running on a platform of "Protecting Russia from it's enemies within and abroad" as it's mantra.
The most religious president in the past couple decades has been Clinton. I do not understand why you seem to think the republicans have this locked up. Perhaps it is just your perception and new found phobias that is different.
do we know off the top of our heads the most religious president in history in terms of references⦠referencing to god⦠references to god and in terms of appearing in churches? Who the most religious president in history was? Itâ(TM)s an interesting answer and I got this information from NPR, so itâ(TM)s probably not slanted in the way you think. The most religious president in history in terms of appearances in churches and mentions of the bible was Clinton.
Bill Clinton is the most religious president weâ(TM)ve had. He beats George Bush hands down and he beats Carter, who we know was a born-again Christian. He beats him hands down. So Obama does that too. I mean at the 9/11 thing, maybe appropriately he read from the Bible. But you have two choices with Obama. You either believe that he is a man of Christ who prays for decisions in the White House, which he said he was or you think heâ(TM)s a liar. And Iâ(TM)m surprised by the number of atheist free thinkers that support Obama and their argument is essentially, heâ(TM)s lying about being religious âcause you have to do that to be elected.
This was stated by Penn Jilliete in a talk he did on something about atheists and the elections. You can find it elsewhere but this has a transcript that's easy to follow.
Well, to illustrate this difference he is talking about, take ending the Iraq war for instance. Bush created a Status of foreign soldiers agreement with the Iraqi Government signing it before the 2008 elections. The media said little about it as bush effectivly ended the Iraq war. Obama comes into office, changes a detail or two and keeps everything else Bush put into place and he is the hero of the day lauded by all the everyone.
John Stewart did a piece on this. I can't find the complete segment, but he revists the notion to make fun of republicans later too.
I suggest watching them in order.. even though they aren't complete. The middle one, in its original entity comes right out and says Obama's ending of the Iraq war is just a Bush policy renamed. But Obama gets the credit instead of Bush.
Nothing you listed would ever get accomplished even if Stein could get elected. All of that agenda would require a large amount of support in congress and no third party has anything close to it.
Congress would just laugh at Stein just like they did to Jimmy Carter when he was president. Although President carter actually had a sizable amount of democrats in congress- they refused to support him on most of his reforms and actually sided with republicans to get around veto threats.
Despite the fact that no third party is capable of getting elected, anyone who thinks if they could get elected as President of the US, is completely delusional and bordering stupid.
Vlad Putin wants an American President who's not stupid enough to blow up the world.
Putin actually blamed the protests around election time on Hillary and the US and ran for office on the guise of protect mother Russia from enemy foreign and within. I'm certain the support is concerning something else. Republicans typically ignore Russia as Bush did over the concerns of the Missile Defense system in Europe that Obama cut. Russia actually threatened to re-target US cities with their Nukes and Bush said- It's nothing to worry about, Russia is our friend now. If I had to guess to why Putin would endorse Obama, it would be because Obama ended the missile defense shield and has consistently backed down to Russia in our efforts with Iran or ran with a plan of appeasement when Obama really needed something accomplished.
The Castro Bros are happy if America maintains enough isolation for them to stay in power, instead of opening up travel so they get flooded with tourists spending money the government can't control.
Cuba has a thriving tourist industry. Only the US is embargoing Cuba and we do not try to force other countries to do the same. Tourism in Cuba seems to be the main source of income for the island now that Russia doesn't feed it regularly.
Those are the two obvious errors in your statements. There are a few logical fallacies outside that but I'm not wasting my time on pointing them out.
I dunno, should you? I mean it hasn't stopped the left from inferring that. I see them calling Romney a racist gay basher all the time. They even work misogynist in there too.
Foreign governments who do not necessarily line up with our interests seems to me would carry a lot more weight then Bubba the meth addicted neo nazi who couldn't spell neo-nazi if he wanted to.
But hey, whatever you need to do to justify yourself I guess.
I was thinking about how that would work when Hillary runs in 2016, but then I remembers it is Hillary, she probably has more balls then the two current candidates combined.
There are tons of fact check stories after the debates. The problem of fact checking during the debates is two fold, facts are often selective meaning that on the whole may not be correct but as used in a specific situation may be correct. The other problem is a debate is supported to be moderated in an unbiased way. If the moderator is nitpicking every detail, the appearance of impartiality can move to strictly biased quickly swaying opinions in ways even the facts would reject.
For instance, if I saw Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate between Obama and Romney, I would be far less critical of Obama's answers. I might even be persuaded by answers claimed to be wrong when situations like Crowley pops up where she stated something was incorrect but then added it was correct in the context used. Nothing by that fact did anything but throw Romney off his speech and eat up time.
The moderators of any debate can offer answers without seeming biased though. Suppose one candidate says 7 or 8 of something did something and the moderator clarified it was in fact 8. If a candidate says something happened on a specific date and the moderator gives a correct date. As long as the information doesn't change the intended message being delivered by the candidate is should be seen as impartial and not biased.
The time to fact check is after a debate. You can be as biased as you want or not, but doing so within a debate derails the entire concept of the debate. It is two or more candidate attempting to separate themselves from each other and defining themselves to the audience- not argue with the moderator about something making it appear biased even if it wasn't.
The differences I read seemed to be more hope filled opinions then facts. I disagree on many things with the GP, but I don't think your swath of reason is anything persuasive or accurate in reflecting the two candidates. Perhaps this is why he ignored it.
I specifically listed the stereotypes for a reason. If you have your head so far up your ass that you could not possibly comprehend why, you should be the one to be quiet.
Actually, I said you belong in another group you didn't list. As I see it, you are a buffoon speaking about crap you have little to no understanding about. You are using logical fallacies and lies in order to do it too. If anyone has their head up their ass, it would in fact be you as reality doesn't match your viewpoints.
As I said, this is what I SEE. As in, what is heavily portrayed by both major parties. (Rather, what each group says about the other.)
Of course it isn't completely true.
It's biased and selective with lies peppered through it. Did you actually think you could post it without someone calling you on it? Anyone that thinks that is an accurate representation of either party is delusional. Your escape to it being what the other parties say about each other pulls you from it, but if you didn't know it was untrue, you do not escape being considered an idiot.
A shocking number of people are pro-Romney for purely religious reasons, and are completey oblivious to the horrors that his pro-corporation policy would cause.
A shocking number of people support obama for his very recent decision to spontaneously support gay marriage. About the only thing Obama seems to care deeply about was his healthcare system, which would be better replaced simply by increasing the number of doctors.
You see, in this you have bought into the bullshit. Romney's not any more pro corporation then any other president has been including Obama's policies. The differences is in how the policies attack the problems. Romney's approach is to make the economic environment cheaper and profitable so businesses can work on their own, Obama's is to give rewards to selected businesses through manipulations of the government and government handouts. This is obvious in that big businesses are actually supporting Obama and the democrats. Something that would be completely contrary to what you would expect if Romney was being so much more pro corporation if it was true.
Obama's support for gay marriage wasn't spontaneous at all either. It came timed right near an election and even had Biden who gets away with gaffs all the time because people think he is a senile old man, float the trial balloon out there to test which way he should commit to. The onion actually has a funny piece on his anti, then almost, then full support when the polls say it would help his political ambitions.
As for Obama's health care, the quagmire of it all is that it could have been implemented to much the same degree without any of the BS involved. A simple law that says, not more ceilings on treatment, no more pre-existing condition disqualifications, and insurance companies must offer coverage to individuals at the lowest rate offered to any company or otherwise defined pool of people that the insurance company offers.
Raising the number of doctors available will not decrease costs. This is because there are hidden variables involved that are mainly due to government being involved in healthcare in the first place. Medicaid and medicare pay not the actual charge the hospital gives them, but an average charge for the treatment received. If your local hospital normally charges $50 for a band-aid and the average in your area is $35, medicaid and medicare will pay based on the $35 costs. It's federal law and the country is divided between 4 or 5 areas in which the costs averaging is done and a billing code has been developed to cover this. Also, it is against federal law for the hospital to charge the patient using Medicare or Medicaid the difference in costs- if they want to take the government programs, the payment based averaging has to be accepted as payment in full except in certain limited situations not worth getting into here. So the
As far as I know, it is a matter of time. I don't know if more difficult key might mean a longer time. Having more instances of the devices trying to connect increases it somehow which is why usually they do not knock them offline just once, but repeatedly.
I should note, I'm not an expert in this area by any means. I know I've tried it using rainbow tables and a brute force cracks and a couple of how to's written sometime about a year or so ago to prove a point. I was successful after about the 4 separate time trying. After the first time of succeeding, it seems to get easier to do. If I can do it, others can with a little looking too.
Not technically. The bailout loans made to GM were not in the form of loans alone. Something like 70% of the loans were in the form of stock purchases in order to hide the full amount of restructuring the company after bankruptcy.
After the government forced GM into bankruptcy and negated any previous stock, part of the bailout gave the unions and GM control of all their stocks. The government then purchased about 60% of this from them at $33 a share. The treasury department sold all but about 25% of these shares right after the IPO of the new stock. The government still owns 25% or more of GM stock and 70 some percent of the former GMAC company that financed GM's own car loans. The new Finance company is called ally finance or something similar.
So yes, GM has paid back the direct loans given by the government. They haven't paid back the costs of the stock purchases and the current stock is going for $24.60 something. Sometime in August it was estimated that selling more of the stock would result in a 26 billion dollar loss.
Yeah, and if you do not like paying 20-35$ extra per tire for your car, you can go back to eating nutritious rat poison. I mean seriously, you probably shouldn't' be driving that car anyways.
And you shouldn't set your thermostat to 72 degrees all the time either. For one, it's going to cost you a lot more in electricity to be comfortable in your own home and if you don't like it, you can go back to eating that nutritious rat poison.
Because you know, when the call against unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations results in an alternative that means you will be eating Rat Poison, I guess the real things this regulation effects would have the same result had they not been in place.
This group is the- I don't know enough to say anything with authority but I've decided based around little actual knowledge but my own opinion what everyone else is about and even jaded my critique of them in order to seem uber important when spewing shit opinions as fact.
You can decide on a name yourself to this group of people. Every single group you ranted about contains factual errors.
Most people who run around trying to claim they will vote third party or that everyone should because of benefit X, are generally either pouting because their "cause" wasn't championed by one of the major party candidates and trying to "teach them a lesson" or they are plants pretending to be for third parties in an attempt to weaken their guy's opponent's chances.
They have heard all the reasoning to why it is rubbish to vote third party. They know it lets the guy most unlike them win. They know that a third party president will be unable to effect any change and it would in fact be one thing that would unit republicans and democrats in making sure they the third party president gets nothing done.
So from the way I see it, they know full well what the effect is and are actually trying to perpetuate it.
It seems to me that the phone you have might be more of the problem you describe though. Here is the problem, you are not going to get a decent firewall installed without root access and you will be limited to updates issues by the provider.
But don't let that dismay you. You can lock down your home network and pretty much get rid of what is worrying you. First, try simply replacing your wifi router as most of what you have described could actually be protocol crashes where the devices cannot deal with some sort of background noise or a flaky signal coming from the router. Linux based wifi access was this way for a while in my experience. It isn't as much a problem any more but a poorly written driver for the device could possibly cause the same issues you think it from being hacked. I had a situation once where when the police helicopters go close to my house, I would lose wifi access and after not being able to reconnect for several minutes, the devices stopped trying leading to a similar experience you are talking about. Changing the router to some brand the same as the neighbors who didn't have the problem- fixed it.
Next, look at your network and see if there are any computers connected that you didn't authorize, Most new routers can ban them from connecting.
Now, the problem that you will likely not be able to solve at all no matter what you do. There are ways to crack WPA2 and other security settings in a wifi connection that involve causing a device to dissociate with the network so it can capture log on information and use known elements of that to run attacks against the decryption. So someone might want on your network and are actively causing the devices to disconnect just to cause them to reconnect. About the only thing you can do to stop that is to get rid of the wireless (not practical in your situation). You could spend a bunch of money and get some monitoring equipment then track the errant signal down, but it would be generally expensive in both the equipment and the expertise to operate it competently.
Oh you mean saying that believing in that god is the same as believing in pixies is denigrating? Oh, well, ok. Religious people are so damn insecure and touchy.
No, I'm saying that you think that calling God pixies and fairy tales is inflammatory and degrading which it why you use the terms you use. Your comment right there is part of it, I never said they were the same, I said you trying to make them the same proved my point. You just did that again..lol
Which logical fallacies? I remember you started some lame attempts at showing that involving personal insults, but they have been pretty pathetic and unconvincing.
lol.. Are you that delusional?
And why do I act the same as those I allegedly "decry"? Look, my arguments are based on logic, but the last time someone tried to convince me to "find god" there was no argument based on logic at all! Instead they said I would not feel so lonely, but even that made no sense because their god was a grumpy and mean asshole. Since pixies are nice, have wings and cute swimsuits, I am sure I would feel less lonely believing in pixies.
Your arguments are not logical. You claim that God is not real because the concept doesn't adhere scientific principles then make claims that fail that same test to claim religions are fake or make believe. That is a fallacy. The entire pixies line is nothing more then an adhominen fallacy, your statements on God not being real is an appeal to authority fallacy, and your logic seems to be because X is not testable, there is no X because if there was it could be testable when the matter of X cannot be determined to be true or false without a test. That is not logic at all, that is your insecure opinions being presented as facts when they aren't even close. That is you doing exactly what the religious people do, pushing beliefs with no scientific evidence to support it.
I was sorry for those ladies, wasting their lives in such a stupid way. Although come think of it who knows what they would do else.
Well, you do know that you are the ones believing in pixies and seem to like them. If any pixies exist, I really doubt you feel sorry for them. In fact, it appears they turn you on. IS that what got you all butt hurt? It wasn't that you miss being an alter boy, but the religious nutters tell you your pixies aren't real using no proof whatsoever at all so you have to attack them? I think maybe a shrink might be able to help you if you talk to them. You should do it before you find a 5 year old girl playing in costume somewhere and really screw your life up.
Its nice to see that the type of phone a person has reflects on their ability to do their jobs. I figured most jobs would be supplying phones if they mattered that much.
I have a hacked Driod phone. It is a model or two behind the current phones on the market but does more then most the current models. Whats that say about my job skills or employment prospects?
hmm.. I wonder if the type of car I drive would be a hindrance, what abut the color of my girlfriends hair?
All I have said is that religious people are delusional. That is the truth. If that denigrates someone, that is not my problem.
Why are you lieing? You even do it in your latest post with your fascinations of pixies. You know damn well they are something completely different then the God of Christianity and you insist it is pixies. Do not sit there and pretend you are anything other then what you are, it's not like you can erase your posting history..lol
I do not have any problem to imagin you believeing in pixies and unicorns because some miracles some prophet witnessed. You would say that is proof.
If some prophet convinced you of it, you can believe it all you want. It doesn't mean I have to. Now do you see the difference between me and you? I don't fucking care if you believe in pixies, I don't care if you are queer or whatever. You on the other hand, seem to think people are a lesser people if they don't believe what you want them to.
You believe this kind of 'argument' somehow invalidates my argument.
I never said it invalidates your argument, you have said plenty of things yourself that do that. I made those comment to simply denigrate you. To give you some of your own medicine.
That you are not ashamed of yourself is pathetic.
Why should I be ashamed of anything I do? Are you trying to push your morals onto me?
Your way of arguing is a perfect example of how religious people denigrate themselves by behaving in selfdenigrating ways. Like the the scene muslims make because of a carictaure.
My way of arguing? you mean pointing to your logical fallacies and how you act exactly like who you decry.
haha.. Or are you all butt hurt because I turned the tables and started making fun of you and trying to belittle you. I said I wouldn't use whatever part of that was true if you named it.
You made that up. How can you call that reasoning and arguing?
ha.. Nothing was made up, all you have to do is hit the parent button and follow the links up. Are you that delusional that you forget what you say and do and have no clue? Don't expect others to be.
Same for pixies and unicorns and this is a fact you can not deny. And also for all other religions that contradict each other. And if you believe in things like this you believe in made up fantasy. It is obvious.
I do not think you understood me. Ask your mom to help you again. If pixies and unicorns end up being proven true, I have no problem with it. If other religions prove to be true, or even conflicting religions prove to be true, I have no problem with that. Why would you think I would?
You say reasoning is a lie. That actually seems to be the religious idea.
No, I said _your_reasoning_ was a lie. Not reasoning in general. If you do not understand that, ask your mom to help you again.
A lie is to lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally. Religions believe their stuff is true and failed the definition. You on the other hand, claimed to profess provability and facts according to the scientific method and then offered argument devoid of all that in some attempt to associate them with authority. It failed because I called you out. Therefore no matter how many times you want to claim it, you are the liar and not the religions.
You are pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, I have to ask which part of that offended you so I know not to tease you about things that happened to you. However, there is no shame on my part. There shouldn't be on yours either.
Where did I claim this? Who claimed this? Did the pixie tell you this? What does that sentence mean anyway?
Lol.. This entire thread is you butting in calling people you do not agree with names and trying to demean them. Your actions told me this. If you think you are a pixie or something, then it says more about you then you ever could about me.
I don't care. But keeping someone like you fuming stupidly and arguing himself into a nonsensical corner is amusing. And you keep comming back for more.
Look dude, I do not know how to dumb it down for you any more then I already have. I can't believe I'm still talking past your intelligence level. Perhaps you mom or sister or someone close by can translate it for you?
Comparing the wright brothers episode with the question about the existence of god must be one of the most stupid things I have ever read in my life
You know what makes it even more stupid? The fact that it was said by you. I did not compare the Wright brothers with the question of god, that is all in your head. What I did was say that before it was even possible, people had to believe heavier then air flying was possible. No one proved it until it was actually done. According to your comments here, that makes them stupid and believing in pixies because what wasn't proven was believed in.
I seriously think you should stop before replying and ask your mom to explain that to you before you run in circles again.
You just believe into something completely unprovable, undetectable, that has no effect, and will never have.
And here is where you insert your own beliefs in some bullshit attempt to exclude others. You have no way to support (scientifically or other) this statement without resorting to what you want to believe in and yet you offer your opinion as if it was fact. Well, it's not fact, you have no clue to with it will ever have an effect, you have no clue if it is unprovable or if it will be proven. You just don't have a clue.
But it is not there in any other sense. The evidence is clear, unless you don't want to see.
Lol.. the made up evidence in your mind? 93% of the world's population claim to be religious. 93% of the world in some way disagrees with you on this issue. If the evidence was there, if it was clear, I doubt I could say that. Therefore, based on you only presenting opinion and not fact regarding this matter I must conclude, along with every single person capable of rational thought, that you are talking out your ass.
Flight was something you could talk about, place your belief either way, and wait for proof. In religion, in contrast, doubting is a sin, and there is no way to ever get proof. It's just a contrived lie.
There is not no way to ever get proof. There is just no way for you to demand proof. The only lie is your reasoning.
How can I stop anyone from believing in pixies? If a person's mind is prone to such lapses, I guess it's better for him to believe in something established and orderly, like jesus and stuff.
Actually, you are trolling them. Most evangelical atheists do the same, except they have enough balls to log into an account that can be traced back to them. If you want to continue to call a religion names, if you want to continue trying to insult the people of it, if that is what you need to do to get through another day, then do it. But there will be people like me pointing out how your logic is far from logic. There will be people like me pointing out that you are doing the exact same thing as you decry. There will be people like me making fun of you. You see, I'm not actually religious, I just do not like idiots like you. There are a lot of us out here and when you spew your rubbish, someone will step in to keep you occupied while other go o
Slashdot Mirror
Third parties are ignored because they would be completely ineffectual if they happened to win. In order to get any agenda accomplished in Washington, you need the support of congress. No third party will have that because unlike the two major parties who are a household name, the third parties are simply fringe groups with axes to grind. The best they can do without doing the legwork to take local seats and state government seats in order to become established enough to sit in congress in regularly sufficient numbers, is to influence policy by making something popular enough to be picked up b one of the major parties.
Third parties are more or less issue parties. The major parties are big ten parties. Then encompass a lot of everything in moderate enough levels not to upset their bases. If something ever becomes popular enough that it looks like a shift in base would happen, the big tent parties simply incorporate it into their platform. Now we are back to third parties having little support again. Without a big tent platform and a ground up name recognition, third parties are more or less a waste of time for most people.
Putin blamed the protests near the elections on the US (hillary actually) and was running on a platform of "Protecting Russia from it's enemies within and abroad" as it's mantra.
The most religious president in the past couple decades has been Clinton. I do not understand why you seem to think the republicans have this locked up. Perhaps it is just your perception and new found phobias that is different.
This was stated by Penn Jilliete in a talk he did on something about atheists and the elections. You can find it elsewhere but this has a transcript that's easy to follow.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41033
Well, to illustrate this difference he is talking about, take ending the Iraq war for instance. Bush created a Status of foreign soldiers agreement with the Iraqi Government signing it before the 2008 elections. The media said little about it as bush effectivly ended the Iraq war. Obama comes into office, changes a detail or two and keeps everything else Bush put into place and he is the hero of the day lauded by all the everyone.
John Stewart did a piece on this. I can't find the complete segment, but he revists the notion to make fun of republicans later too.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-20-2008/mess-o-potamia---iraq-surrenders
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-3-2009/mess-o-potamia---the-iraq-war-is-over
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-24-2011/end-o-potamia
I suggest watching them in order.. even though they aren't complete. The middle one, in its original entity comes right out and says Obama's ending of the Iraq war is just a Bush policy renamed. But Obama gets the credit instead of Bush.
Nothing you listed would ever get accomplished even if Stein could get elected. All of that agenda would require a large amount of support in congress and no third party has anything close to it.
Congress would just laugh at Stein just like they did to Jimmy Carter when he was president. Although President carter actually had a sizable amount of democrats in congress- they refused to support him on most of his reforms and actually sided with republicans to get around veto threats.
Despite the fact that no third party is capable of getting elected, anyone who thinks if they could get elected as President of the US, is completely delusional and bordering stupid.
You got a few problems in your reasoning there.
Putin actually blamed the protests around election time on Hillary and the US and ran for office on the guise of protect mother Russia from enemy foreign and within. I'm certain the support is concerning something else. Republicans typically ignore Russia as Bush did over the concerns of the Missile Defense system in Europe that Obama cut. Russia actually threatened to re-target US cities with their Nukes and Bush said- It's nothing to worry about, Russia is our friend now. If I had to guess to why Putin would endorse Obama, it would be because Obama ended the missile defense shield and has consistently backed down to Russia in our efforts with Iran or ran with a plan of appeasement when Obama really needed something accomplished.
Cuba has a thriving tourist industry. Only the US is embargoing Cuba and we do not try to force other countries to do the same. Tourism in Cuba seems to be the main source of income for the island now that Russia doesn't feed it regularly.
Those are the two obvious errors in your statements. There are a few logical fallacies outside that but I'm not wasting my time on pointing them out.
I dunno, should you? I mean it hasn't stopped the left from inferring that. I see them calling Romney a racist gay basher all the time. They even work misogynist in there too.
Foreign governments who do not necessarily line up with our interests seems to me would carry a lot more weight then Bubba the meth addicted neo nazi who couldn't spell neo-nazi if he wanted to.
But hey, whatever you need to do to justify yourself I guess.
I was thinking about how that would work when Hillary runs in 2016, but then I remembers it is Hillary, she probably has more balls then the two current candidates combined.
There are tons of fact check stories after the debates. The problem of fact checking during the debates is two fold, facts are often selective meaning that on the whole may not be correct but as used in a specific situation may be correct. The other problem is a debate is supported to be moderated in an unbiased way. If the moderator is nitpicking every detail, the appearance of impartiality can move to strictly biased quickly swaying opinions in ways even the facts would reject.
For instance, if I saw Rush Limbaugh moderating a debate between Obama and Romney, I would be far less critical of Obama's answers. I might even be persuaded by answers claimed to be wrong when situations like Crowley pops up where she stated something was incorrect but then added it was correct in the context used. Nothing by that fact did anything but throw Romney off his speech and eat up time.
The moderators of any debate can offer answers without seeming biased though. Suppose one candidate says 7 or 8 of something did something and the moderator clarified it was in fact 8. If a candidate says something happened on a specific date and the moderator gives a correct date. As long as the information doesn't change the intended message being delivered by the candidate is should be seen as impartial and not biased.
The time to fact check is after a debate. You can be as biased as you want or not, but doing so within a debate derails the entire concept of the debate. It is two or more candidate attempting to separate themselves from each other and defining themselves to the audience- not argue with the moderator about something making it appear biased even if it wasn't.
The differences I read seemed to be more hope filled opinions then facts. I disagree on many things with the GP, but I don't think your swath of reason is anything persuasive or accurate in reflecting the two candidates. Perhaps this is why he ignored it.
Actually, I said you belong in another group you didn't list. As I see it, you are a buffoon speaking about crap you have little to no understanding about. You are using logical fallacies and lies in order to do it too. If anyone has their head up their ass, it would in fact be you as reality doesn't match your viewpoints.
It's biased and selective with lies peppered through it. Did you actually think you could post it without someone calling you on it? Anyone that thinks that is an accurate representation of either party is delusional. Your escape to it being what the other parties say about each other pulls you from it, but if you didn't know it was untrue, you do not escape being considered an idiot.
You see, in this you have bought into the bullshit. Romney's not any more pro corporation then any other president has been including Obama's policies. The differences is in how the policies attack the problems. Romney's approach is to make the economic environment cheaper and profitable so businesses can work on their own, Obama's is to give rewards to selected businesses through manipulations of the government and government handouts. This is obvious in that big businesses are actually supporting Obama and the democrats. Something that would be completely contrary to what you would expect if Romney was being so much more pro corporation if it was true.
Obama's support for gay marriage wasn't spontaneous at all either. It came timed right near an election and even had Biden who gets away with gaffs all the time because people think he is a senile old man, float the trial balloon out there to test which way he should commit to. The onion actually has a funny piece on his anti, then almost, then full support when the polls say it would help his political ambitions.
As for Obama's health care, the quagmire of it all is that it could have been implemented to much the same degree without any of the BS involved. A simple law that says, not more ceilings on treatment, no more pre-existing condition disqualifications, and insurance companies must offer coverage to individuals at the lowest rate offered to any company or otherwise defined pool of people that the insurance company offers.
Raising the number of doctors available will not decrease costs. This is because there are hidden variables involved that are mainly due to government being involved in healthcare in the first place. Medicaid and medicare pay not the actual charge the hospital gives them, but an average charge for the treatment received. If your local hospital normally charges $50 for a band-aid and the average in your area is $35, medicaid and medicare will pay based on the $35 costs. It's federal law and the country is divided between 4 or 5 areas in which the costs averaging is done and a billing code has been developed to cover this. Also, it is against federal law for the hospital to charge the patient using Medicare or Medicaid the difference in costs- if they want to take the government programs, the payment based averaging has to be accepted as payment in full except in certain limited situations not worth getting into here. So the
As far as I know, it is a matter of time. I don't know if more difficult key might mean a longer time. Having more instances of the devices trying to connect increases it somehow which is why usually they do not knock them offline just once, but repeatedly.
I should note, I'm not an expert in this area by any means. I know I've tried it using rainbow tables and a brute force cracks and a couple of how to's written sometime about a year or so ago to prove a point. I was successful after about the 4 separate time trying. After the first time of succeeding, it seems to get easier to do. If I can do it, others can with a little looking too.
lol.. Your scale is skewed. You are missing the trees for the forest. And yes, I meant that backwards.
Not technically. The bailout loans made to GM were not in the form of loans alone. Something like 70% of the loans were in the form of stock purchases in order to hide the full amount of restructuring the company after bankruptcy.
After the government forced GM into bankruptcy and negated any previous stock, part of the bailout gave the unions and GM control of all their stocks. The government then purchased about 60% of this from them at $33 a share. The treasury department sold all but about 25% of these shares right after the IPO of the new stock. The government still owns 25% or more of GM stock and 70 some percent of the former GMAC company that financed GM's own car loans. The new Finance company is called ally finance or something similar.
So yes, GM has paid back the direct loans given by the government. They haven't paid back the costs of the stock purchases and the current stock is going for $24.60 something. Sometime in August it was estimated that selling more of the stock would result in a 26 billion dollar loss.
Yeah, and if you do not like paying 20-35$ extra per tire for your car, you can go back to eating nutritious rat poison. I mean seriously, you probably shouldn't' be driving that car anyways.
And you shouldn't set your thermostat to 72 degrees all the time either. For one, it's going to cost you a lot more in electricity to be comfortable in your own home and if you don't like it, you can go back to eating that nutritious rat poison.
Because you know, when the call against unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations results in an alternative that means you will be eating Rat Poison, I guess the real things this regulation effects would have the same result had they not been in place.
You belong to the group you failed to list.
This group is the- I don't know enough to say anything with authority but I've decided based around little actual knowledge but my own opinion what everyone else is about and even jaded my critique of them in order to seem uber important when spewing shit opinions as fact.
You can decide on a name yourself to this group of people. Every single group you ranted about contains factual errors.
Oh, I'm sure they do. They just don't see it as some utopian entity like others do and claim every slight lean towards it is bad.
Most people who run around trying to claim they will vote third party or that everyone should because of benefit X, are generally either pouting because their "cause" wasn't championed by one of the major party candidates and trying to "teach them a lesson" or they are plants pretending to be for third parties in an attempt to weaken their guy's opponent's chances.
They have heard all the reasoning to why it is rubbish to vote third party. They know it lets the guy most unlike them win. They know that a third party president will be unable to effect any change and it would in fact be one thing that would unit republicans and democrats in making sure they the third party president gets nothing done.
So from the way I see it, they know full well what the effect is and are actually trying to perpetuate it.
I'm sorry I'm speaking over your head. Please ask your mom or an older friend to help you with this. You will find the problem is all with you.
It seems to me that the phone you have might be more of the problem you describe though. Here is the problem, you are not going to get a decent firewall installed without root access and you will be limited to updates issues by the provider.
But don't let that dismay you. You can lock down your home network and pretty much get rid of what is worrying you. First, try simply replacing your wifi router as most of what you have described could actually be protocol crashes where the devices cannot deal with some sort of background noise or a flaky signal coming from the router. Linux based wifi access was this way for a while in my experience. It isn't as much a problem any more but a poorly written driver for the device could possibly cause the same issues you think it from being hacked. I had a situation once where when the police helicopters go close to my house, I would lose wifi access and after not being able to reconnect for several minutes, the devices stopped trying leading to a similar experience you are talking about. Changing the router to some brand the same as the neighbors who didn't have the problem- fixed it.
Next, look at your network and see if there are any computers connected that you didn't authorize, Most new routers can ban them from connecting.
Now, the problem that you will likely not be able to solve at all no matter what you do. There are ways to crack WPA2 and other security settings in a wifi connection that involve causing a device to dissociate with the network so it can capture log on information and use known elements of that to run attacks against the decryption. So someone might want on your network and are actively causing the devices to disconnect just to cause them to reconnect. About the only thing you can do to stop that is to get rid of the wireless (not practical in your situation). You could spend a bunch of money and get some monitoring equipment then track the errant signal down, but it would be generally expensive in both the equipment and the expertise to operate it competently.
No, I'm saying that you think that calling God pixies and fairy tales is inflammatory and degrading which it why you use the terms you use. Your comment right there is part of it, I never said they were the same, I said you trying to make them the same proved my point. You just did that again..lol
lol.. Are you that delusional?
Your arguments are not logical. You claim that God is not real because the concept doesn't adhere scientific principles then make claims that fail that same test to claim religions are fake or make believe. That is a fallacy. The entire pixies line is nothing more then an adhominen fallacy, your statements on God not being real is an appeal to authority fallacy, and your logic seems to be because X is not testable, there is no X because if there was it could be testable when the matter of X cannot be determined to be true or false without a test. That is not logic at all, that is your insecure opinions being presented as facts when they aren't even close. That is you doing exactly what the religious people do, pushing beliefs with no scientific evidence to support it.
Well, you do know that you are the ones believing in pixies and seem to like them. If any pixies exist, I really doubt you feel sorry for them. In fact, it appears they turn you on. IS that what got you all butt hurt? It wasn't that you miss being an alter boy, but the religious nutters tell you your pixies aren't real using no proof whatsoever at all so you have to attack them? I think maybe a shrink might be able to help you if you talk to them. You should do it before you find a 5 year old girl playing in costume somewhere and really screw your life up.
Its nice to see that the type of phone a person has reflects on their ability to do their jobs. I figured most jobs would be supplying phones if they mattered that much.
I have a hacked Driod phone. It is a model or two behind the current phones on the market but does more then most the current models. Whats that say about my job skills or employment prospects?
hmm.. I wonder if the type of car I drive would be a hindrance, what abut the color of my girlfriends hair?
Why are you lieing? You even do it in your latest post with your fascinations of pixies. You know damn well they are something completely different then the God of Christianity and you insist it is pixies. Do not sit there and pretend you are anything other then what you are, it's not like you can erase your posting history..lol
If some prophet convinced you of it, you can believe it all you want. It doesn't mean I have to. Now do you see the difference between me and you? I don't fucking care if you believe in pixies, I don't care if you are queer or whatever. You on the other hand, seem to think people are a lesser people if they don't believe what you want them to.
I never said it invalidates your argument, you have said plenty of things yourself that do that. I made those comment to simply denigrate you. To give you some of your own medicine.
Why should I be ashamed of anything I do? Are you trying to push your morals onto me?
My way of arguing? you mean pointing to your logical fallacies and how you act exactly like who you decry.
haha.. Or are you all butt hurt because I turned the tables and started making fun of you and trying to belittle you. I said I wouldn't use whatever part of that was true if you named it.
ha.. Nothing was made up, all you have to do is hit the parent button and follow the links up. Are you that delusional that you forget what you say and do and have no clue? Don't expect others to be.
I do not think you understood me. Ask your mom to help you again. If pixies and unicorns end up being proven true, I have no problem with it. If other religions prove to be true, or even conflicting religions prove to be true, I have no problem with that. Why would you think I would?
No, I said _your_reasoning_ was a lie. Not reasoning in general. If you do not understand that, ask your mom to help you again.
A lie is to lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally. Religions believe their stuff is true and failed the definition. You on the other hand, claimed to profess provability and facts according to the scientific method and then offered argument devoid of all that in some attempt to associate them with authority. It failed because I called you out. Therefore no matter how many times you want to claim it, you are the liar and not the religions.
For the record, I have to ask which part of that offended you so I know not to tease you about things that happened to you. However, there is no shame on my part. There shouldn't be on yours either.
Lol.. This entire thread is you butting in calling people you do not agree with names and trying to demean them. Your actions told me this. If you think you are a pixie or something, then it says more about you then you ever could about me.
Look dude, I do not know how to dumb it down for you any more then I already have. I can't believe I'm still talking past your intelligence level. Perhaps you mom or sister or someone close by can translate it for you?
You know what makes it even more stupid? The fact that it was said by you. I did not compare the Wright brothers with the question of god, that is all in your head. What I did was say that before it was even possible, people had to believe heavier then air flying was possible. No one proved it until it was actually done. According to your comments here, that makes them stupid and believing in pixies because what wasn't proven was believed in.
I seriously think you should stop before replying and ask your mom to explain that to you before you run in circles again.
And here is where you insert your own beliefs in some bullshit attempt to exclude others. You have no way to support (scientifically or other) this statement without resorting to what you want to believe in and yet you offer your opinion as if it was fact. Well, it's not fact, you have no clue to with it will ever have an effect, you have no clue if it is unprovable or if it will be proven. You just don't have a clue.
Lol.. the made up evidence in your mind? 93% of the world's population claim to be religious. 93% of the world in some way disagrees with you on this issue. If the evidence was there, if it was clear, I doubt I could say that. Therefore, based on you only presenting opinion and not fact regarding this matter I must conclude, along with every single person capable of rational thought, that you are talking out your ass.
There is not no way to ever get proof. There is just no way for you to demand proof. The only lie is your reasoning.
Actually, you are trolling them. Most evangelical atheists do the same, except they have enough balls to log into an account that can be traced back to them. If you want to continue to call a religion names, if you want to continue trying to insult the people of it, if that is what you need to do to get through another day, then do it. But there will be people like me pointing out how your logic is far from logic. There will be people like me pointing out that you are doing the exact same thing as you decry. There will be people like me making fun of you. You see, I'm not actually religious, I just do not like idiots like you. There are a lot of us out here and when you spew your rubbish, someone will step in to keep you occupied while other go o