yes, because all we need is raving loons countering stupidity. that is sure to get everyone on the same page.
both the gp and the response had errors in it. But the GP's point wasn't invalid. People will get paid, seniors will get thier checks and so on through accounting gimmicks for several months. The only way this would not happen would be at the direction of, or incompetence of the head of the executive office. If people are put out of pay or benefits because of not raising the debt ceiling within the next 5-7 months, it will be because of Obama's direct actions or the lack of action to avoid it. The capability is there for at least the rest of this fiscal year.
They aren't simple fixes at all because they aren't fixes at all.
Almost everything in your list would do more harm then good while not even remotely addressing the reasons they might be problems in the first place.
But the reason your government is ignoring you might be because you come off as a loon. Stop bombing brown people? serious;y, is bombing whites, blacks, or yellow people magically ok or something? And yes, your government is ignoring you because most of what is on you list has been happening longer then a decade- despite you activities with the government..
So have you reviewed all the science with Global Warming and determined it to be sound? If not, how do you know that your strong support for it isn't influenced by the agendas (or whatever might discredit who was releasing the science) that might have discredited the people releasing the information in the first place?
I would hope the answer here is that it's actually someone who is not agenda oriented reviewed the science and the science supports the concept. But on the counter argument, the same is true when critics are summarily dismissed because they are statisticians and not climate scientists or there is some connection to big oil or whatever. Either their statements are supported by the evidence/science or they are not. I also would suggest not putting too strong of an emphasis on evidence alone, the science behind it is what is important. The sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening was enough evidence to support the claim that the sun revolved around the earth for the longest of times. So taking everything into consideration and weighting it with the science involved in it and other things is more important then X happened then Y happened, so so X causes Y.
I guess you are missing the point of what I was saying.
It's the timing. Do part of it now, then raise taxes once the economy recovers. IT doesn't need to happen right this second. It's obvious that both needs to happen eventually, and it's obvious that cuts alone will not fix the problem. It's also obvious that raising taxes right now is irresponsible and recklessly endangering the economy.
So the solution, cut some government now, cap some spending now, wait until the economy recovers, cut some more spending (hopefully the war funding will be gone), cut some more government, revisits changing the taxes, and if the economy is robust enough to handle it, raise taxes.
Well, sort of. Because of the separation, when going from the social security account to the general fund, it counts as both a credit and a debt but going from the general fund to the social security fund, it's just a credit.
With this, the costs to the tax payer is actually more one way and the same the other way. It's more or less accounting tricks but technically, the social security fund is owed any funds removed from it which increases the debt.
How are they fucked over if they have an income high enough to not need social security payments?
seriously, it's no different from paying t axes all your adult life to have it wasted on a bike path that goes nowhere constructive while you road you lice on has pot holes galore and should have been resurfaced years ago. Its no different from paying for insurance all you life and never getting sick.
high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are defined by the very body in question. Of course it only applies to regular folk. Haven't you heard, the king/Queen can do no wrong.
the problem with raising taxes is that it creates dead costs for an already struggling economy. If the economy was sound, raising taxes would be a god idea, but right now, and in the foreseeable future, it is a very bad idea that could further damage the economy or destroy it altogether.
Now before anyone chimes in with Clinton raised taxes, look at the details, he had a fairly robust economy and it could stand the dead costs.
Also, note that by dead costs, I means costs that add absolutely no value to the economy and the participants within. It would only cover existing obligations while draining investments from it.
BTW, you can only discredit the science if there is a problem with the science. You can discredit the person presenting the science which will only cause it to be reviewed and presented by someone else, but the science can only be discredited by the science itself.
LOL - no there isn't. There are some *very* spotty and vague mentions from well after the time Jesus was supposed to be running around, but none at all between 0-30 AD.
You need to learn what contemporaneous means.
I know what contemporaneous means. Perhaps you should learn the definition too. It doesn't have to be between 0-30 ad. Especially when historians note that he lived between 4 bc to 30 ad. what has to be true is that the accounting happened at the times he lived in which there are plenty of Jewish and non Jewish references within the time span of the people who were alive when he was. contemporaneous isn't limited to just the life span of something unless it's in a vacuum with no external interaction whatsoever at all. Otherwise, the life span of others is perfectly within the definition.
What do you have to actually back that claim up with? Saying it is one thing; backing it up... well, we can observe that the best religious scholars in the world haven't been able to do it as yet; but I'm giving you all the rope you need here. What'cha got?
Why don't you try using google and look for the historicity of Jesus. Here is a place to start looking.
Remember the timeline here: Jesus died on the cross in 30 AD, according to the story. So anything you bring has to come from that time period, 0-30 AD. People born after he died -- like Josephus -- never met the man... they don't count at all, because all they can do is report what others told them.
No, it does not. History is full of first hand testifying over things that happened after it happened. In fact, we have learned a lot about the battle of 1812 long after 1812 was over and settled for instance. This is because the period of time doesn't end when the activities of the event ends,it ends when the people who witnessed it, participated in it, and we directly influenced by it (first hand of course) extend the period of time until their death. There are writings, religious and non-religious during that time period.
Or are you going to claim that your Great grand parents never existed because no contemporaneous evidence is present from the time they were alive to acknowledge their existence? I mean if you can only examine the time they were specifically alive, then you have to claim they never existed if there isn't any. Even the obituary written in the news paper would be off-limits because it would have been published after their deaths. That's completely absurd in reality so I do not know what you are attempting to prove with that idiotic line of reasoning that evidence can only be from when he was alive. And even then, if we allow that type of pedantic self fulfilling mental masturbation, it still doesn't prove anything to the non-existence of anything. OR in other words, it doesn't mean he never existed. It only means you latched onto something that you think makes you smart, which to your group of friends it might, but to the rest of the world, it only shows how much you are willing to hang onto some belief of yours by inserting idiocy into unnecessarily imposed requirements.
What I stated stands true, there is evidence that Jesus the man existed which stands up to the same evidence standards that tells us king tut existed and most of the rest of ancient history happened.
Wow, you are basing your opinion on the entire populous of a state on your interactions with a couple drunks from that state. There's real intelligence at work for you. That pond scum we evolved from must be really proud about now.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure who is the winner in your scenario. I think it's a little safer to bet on the Texans- with or without alcohol. I will tell you what, I'll put my drunken West Virginian or sloshed Californian up against your drunken texan and see who wins a cage fight of idiocy. If it's close, I will pull out my secrete weapons, the liberal meth-head Michigan and the conservative heroine addicted ohioan. And yes, I understand they are just people and not representative of the entire populous of the state.
I doubt it would be a doomed court case. They weren't hiding the creationism teachings as anything other then that.
You're right that there would likely be another court case, but I doubt it would be doomed. It's not illegal to teach "about" religious material in schools. It's only illegal to preach religion in schools.
Yes, I have. And I do not have a problem with most of it. It's political ideology there.
There is nothing wrong with a company giving a candidate money or lobbying congress. What is wrong is where congress steps outside it's constitutional authority and grants either people or companies rights and benefits they shouldn't have over each other.
For fucks sake, do you want me to read it to you too?
I told you, it was the Uruguay Round table agreements that mandated we had to maintain and honor the copyright terms set out in the EU directive on harmonizing copyright terms for all countries which did the same with us.The EU directive on harmonizing was a direct action by the EU concerning the Uruguay round table talks. It was part of GATT just before WIPO kicked in. That alone should be enough to show you exactly where to look. But I also gave you a pointer to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act created by the 103rd congress. BTW, the 103rd congress was in session between 1993 and 1995.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Berne convention at all as it was several years before this even happened (with the US).
Lol.. there is real evidence that a man called Jesus (that's a Greek transposition because his hebrew name had no direct translation), was active in the times that Jesus was supposed to be active and there was movements and political action dealing with it. Your right, there is no evidence linking him as the son of god, but that was never my claim. I said the man existed in which that was attributed to and this existence is supported by evidence gathered from people alive at the time, or the time others who were alive when Jesus was walking the earth.
Most of the non-supernatural parts of the stories about Jesus is most likely an accurate representation of a real person. To sum this up, there was a man who was known as Jesus, who came from Nazareth, who was a teacher and a healer (as those traits come hand in hand), a Jew, who traveled with a band of people and caused problems in the jewish community. Whether he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, or anything else is speculation between a cheap scam or performance for a small offering to the real deal. But I'm not claiming there is any evidence of that.
Well first of all, most of what you would consider to be corruptions is probably more political ideology then actual corruption. (meaning it's in your head)
But yes, I would say that they have less "dumb people voting". Notice I said voting and not in general. You can attribute that to a better press, a mandate or requirement to vote instilling the necessity to become informed, or differences in the election process altogether.
You might be able to present the argument that less corrupt is subject to political ideology in which you simply agree more with their actions.
I'm pretty sure I did cite a US treaty they used. It was called the "Uruguay round table agreements" which was an extension of the GATT treaties (later absorbed and replaced by the foundation of WIPO).
The agreement dealt with restored copyrights for works of foreign nature that were not covered by domestic copyright but was covered by foreign copyright if the country the copyright originally filed in was a member of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) following the 1993 EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act failed to extend the terms of domestic copyright so the Bono act was passed later to remain in compliance by making the terms if the US copyright the same length as the agreed terms we would honor for foreign works.
You do realize that the Bono and DMCA laws were the implementations of international treaties right? Once congress ratified the Uruguay round table agreements, the WCT and WPPT treaties, they were constitutionally mandates to create the law on it.
I see so many people who think Disney or RIAA or MPAA was behind it. That may be true, but they convinced a lot more then your US politicians well before you even heard about it. In fact, the EU attempted to implement the extensions before the US did, and signed into the treaties before the US did that created the DMCA. This is also why every so often you will see DMCA style laws pop up in different countries repeatedly. It's because they signed the treaties mandating it.
I say this because if you want change in this regard, you have to change the treaties first.
Also, unless you are using some non-standard definition of contemporaneous which should have a definition of Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time, then you will see documented evidence within that scope.
Jesus the man is said to have lived between 4 BC to 30 AD. you will note that the Babylonian Talmud makes mention of Jesus the man as early as 70 bc. that's only 40 years later and is certainly within the life time of someone living at the same time as Jesus. Another in the same was a letter by Mara bar Sarapion to his son estimated dating to 73 AD which again is in the same time. Then there is the works by Titus Flavius Josephus who was known to be born just 7 years after the man Jesus supposedly died who would have been in direct contact with people who were alive and had a chance to interact with the man Jesus.
And finally, there is the historical documentation by Tacitus who was alive in the time others were alive when Jesus was.
You are right that there is no know sources of information concerning Jesus being a real person from within his own lifetime. But to claim all opportunity to provide proof of his existence as a real person died with him is a bit silly. People were alive that lived longer then he did, people intermingled with those people. The record is pretty clear, a man called Jesus existed at the time Jesus the Christ supposedly did and it's known much in the same way that any ancient history is known, that this man did things similar to the claims of what Jesus the Chirst did..
And no, wikipedia cites the sources in this. You can't bring up it's unreliability and other claims to dismiss it. This is perhaps one of the most vetted articles on it because of the nature of the content.
You suck it up buttercup. That's all the thrills and benefits of having a democracy elect your republic for of government. Now get out there and sign up more ignorant idiots to run to the polls come November and elect the candidate I convince their friends to tell them to vote for because they aren't smart enough to turn the lights out when they leave the room.
In case you missed the point of that, as long as we have idiots voting, we will have idiots elected. as long as idiots are elected, we will have the MPAA's of the world convincing them that their rights reign superior to ours. And if you think this is a republican/democrat/tea party thing, you just might be one of those idiots. This lunacy is universal in politics.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, There just isn't much or any evidence that he was the son of god or the messiah or anything special and supernatural. All that is a matter of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, because all we need is raving loons countering stupidity. that is sure to get everyone on the same page.
both the gp and the response had errors in it. But the GP's point wasn't invalid. People will get paid, seniors will get thier checks and so on through accounting gimmicks for several months. The only way this would not happen would be at the direction of, or incompetence of the head of the executive office. If people are put out of pay or benefits because of not raising the debt ceiling within the next 5-7 months, it will be because of Obama's direct actions or the lack of action to avoid it. The capability is there for at least the rest of this fiscal year.
They aren't simple fixes at all because they aren't fixes at all.
Almost everything in your list would do more harm then good while not even remotely addressing the reasons they might be problems in the first place.
But the reason your government is ignoring you might be because you come off as a loon. Stop bombing brown people? serious;y, is bombing whites, blacks, or yellow people magically ok or something? And yes, your government is ignoring you because most of what is on you list has been happening longer then a decade- despite you activities with the government..
Well, that's not very scientific is it?
So have you reviewed all the science with Global Warming and determined it to be sound? If not, how do you know that your strong support for it isn't influenced by the agendas (or whatever might discredit who was releasing the science) that might have discredited the people releasing the information in the first place?
I would hope the answer here is that it's actually someone who is not agenda oriented reviewed the science and the science supports the concept. But on the counter argument, the same is true when critics are summarily dismissed because they are statisticians and not climate scientists or there is some connection to big oil or whatever. Either their statements are supported by the evidence/science or they are not. I also would suggest not putting too strong of an emphasis on evidence alone, the science behind it is what is important. The sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening was enough evidence to support the claim that the sun revolved around the earth for the longest of times. So taking everything into consideration and weighting it with the science involved in it and other things is more important then X happened then Y happened, so so X causes Y.
I guess you are missing the point of what I was saying.
It's the timing. Do part of it now, then raise taxes once the economy recovers. IT doesn't need to happen right this second. It's obvious that both needs to happen eventually, and it's obvious that cuts alone will not fix the problem. It's also obvious that raising taxes right now is irresponsible and recklessly endangering the economy.
So the solution, cut some government now, cap some spending now, wait until the economy recovers, cut some more spending (hopefully the war funding will be gone), cut some more government, revisits changing the taxes, and if the economy is robust enough to handle it, raise taxes.
Well, sort of. Because of the separation, when going from the social security account to the general fund, it counts as both a credit and a debt but going from the general fund to the social security fund, it's just a credit.
With this, the costs to the tax payer is actually more one way and the same the other way. It's more or less accounting tricks but technically, the social security fund is owed any funds removed from it which increases the debt.
How are they fucked over if they have an income high enough to not need social security payments?
seriously, it's no different from paying t axes all your adult life to have it wasted on a bike path that goes nowhere constructive while you road you lice on has pot holes galore and should have been resurfaced years ago. Its no different from paying for insurance all you life and never getting sick.
high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are defined by the very body in question. Of course it only applies to regular folk. Haven't you heard, the king/Queen can do no wrong.
the problem with raising taxes is that it creates dead costs for an already struggling economy. If the economy was sound, raising taxes would be a god idea, but right now, and in the foreseeable future, it is a very bad idea that could further damage the economy or destroy it altogether.
Now before anyone chimes in with Clinton raised taxes, look at the details, he had a fairly robust economy and it could stand the dead costs.
Also, note that by dead costs, I means costs that add absolutely no value to the economy and the participants within. It would only cover existing obligations while draining investments from it.
no, yoou couldn't unless you made a law to do so first.
social security tax does not go into the general fund. they use an accounting gimmick that allows them to move it there, but thats another story.
what if there is something to discredit them?
BTW, you can only discredit the science if there is a problem with the science. You can discredit the person presenting the science which will only cause it to be reviewed and presented by someone else, but the science can only be discredited by the science itself.
I know what contemporaneous means. Perhaps you should learn the definition too. It doesn't have to be between 0-30 ad. Especially when historians note that he lived between 4 bc to 30 ad. what has to be true is that the accounting happened at the times he lived in which there are plenty of Jewish and non Jewish references within the time span of the people who were alive when he was. contemporaneous isn't limited to just the life span of something unless it's in a vacuum with no external interaction whatsoever at all. Otherwise, the life span of others is perfectly within the definition.
Why don't you try using google and look for the historicity of Jesus. Here is a place to start looking.
No, it does not. History is full of first hand testifying over things that happened after it happened. In fact, we have learned a lot about the battle of 1812 long after 1812 was over and settled for instance. This is because the period of time doesn't end when the activities of the event ends,it ends when the people who witnessed it, participated in it, and we directly influenced by it (first hand of course) extend the period of time until their death. There are writings, religious and non-religious during that time period.
Or are you going to claim that your Great grand parents never existed because no contemporaneous evidence is present from the time they were alive to acknowledge their existence? I mean if you can only examine the time they were specifically alive, then you have to claim they never existed if there isn't any. Even the obituary written in the news paper would be off-limits because it would have been published after their deaths. That's completely absurd in reality so I do not know what you are attempting to prove with that idiotic line of reasoning that evidence can only be from when he was alive. And even then, if we allow that type of pedantic self fulfilling mental masturbation, it still doesn't prove anything to the non-existence of anything. OR in other words, it doesn't mean he never existed. It only means you latched onto something that you think makes you smart, which to your group of friends it might, but to the rest of the world, it only shows how much you are willing to hang onto some belief of yours by inserting idiocy into unnecessarily imposed requirements.
What I stated stands true, there is evidence that Jesus the man existed which stands up to the same evidence standards that tells us king tut existed and most of the rest of ancient history happened.
Wow, you are basing your opinion on the entire populous of a state on your interactions with a couple drunks from that state. There's real intelligence at work for you. That pond scum we evolved from must be really proud about now.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure who is the winner in your scenario. I think it's a little safer to bet on the Texans- with or without alcohol. I will tell you what, I'll put my drunken West Virginian or sloshed Californian up against your drunken texan and see who wins a cage fight of idiocy. If it's close, I will pull out my secrete weapons, the liberal meth-head Michigan and the conservative heroine addicted ohioan. And yes, I understand they are just people and not representative of the entire populous of the state.
I doubt it would be a doomed court case. They weren't hiding the creationism teachings as anything other then that.
You're right that there would likely be another court case, but I doubt it would be doomed. It's not illegal to teach "about" religious material in schools. It's only illegal to preach religion in schools.
Yes, I have. And I do not have a problem with most of it. It's political ideology there.
There is nothing wrong with a company giving a candidate money or lobbying congress. What is wrong is where congress steps outside it's constitutional authority and grants either people or companies rights and benefits they shouldn't have over each other.
For fucks sake, do you want me to read it to you too?
I told you, it was the Uruguay Round table agreements that mandated we had to maintain and honor the copyright terms set out in the EU directive on harmonizing copyright terms for all countries which did the same with us.The EU directive on harmonizing was a direct action by the EU concerning the Uruguay round table talks. It was part of GATT just before WIPO kicked in. That alone should be enough to show you exactly where to look. But I also gave you a pointer to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act created by the 103rd congress. BTW, the 103rd congress was in session between 1993 and 1995.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Berne convention at all as it was several years before this even happened (with the US).
Lol.. there is real evidence that a man called Jesus (that's a Greek transposition because his hebrew name had no direct translation), was active in the times that Jesus was supposed to be active and there was movements and political action dealing with it. Your right, there is no evidence linking him as the son of god, but that was never my claim. I said the man existed in which that was attributed to and this existence is supported by evidence gathered from people alive at the time, or the time others who were alive when Jesus was walking the earth.
Most of the non-supernatural parts of the stories about Jesus is most likely an accurate representation of a real person. To sum this up, there was a man who was known as Jesus, who came from Nazareth, who was a teacher and a healer (as those traits come hand in hand), a Jew, who traveled with a band of people and caused problems in the jewish community. Whether he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, or anything else is speculation between a cheap scam or performance for a small offering to the real deal. But I'm not claiming there is any evidence of that.
Well first of all, most of what you would consider to be corruptions is probably more political ideology then actual corruption. (meaning it's in your head)
But yes, I would say that they have less "dumb people voting". Notice I said voting and not in general. You can attribute that to a better press, a mandate or requirement to vote instilling the necessity to become informed, or differences in the election process altogether.
You might be able to present the argument that less corrupt is subject to political ideology in which you simply agree more with their actions.
I'm pretty sure I did cite a US treaty they used. It was called the "Uruguay round table agreements" which was an extension of the GATT treaties (later absorbed and replaced by the foundation of WIPO).
The agreement dealt with restored copyrights for works of foreign nature that were not covered by domestic copyright but was covered by foreign copyright if the country the copyright originally filed in was a member of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) following the 1993 EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act failed to extend the terms of domestic copyright so the Bono act was passed later to remain in compliance by making the terms if the US copyright the same length as the agreed terms we would honor for foreign works.
it has citations which does. Either discredit those citations or go troll somewhere else.
You do realize that the Bono and DMCA laws were the implementations of international treaties right? Once congress ratified the Uruguay round table agreements, the WCT and WPPT treaties, they were constitutionally mandates to create the law on it.
I see so many people who think Disney or RIAA or MPAA was behind it. That may be true, but they convinced a lot more then your US politicians well before you even heard about it. In fact, the EU attempted to implement the extensions before the US did, and signed into the treaties before the US did that created the DMCA. This is also why every so often you will see DMCA style laws pop up in different countries repeatedly. It's because they signed the treaties mandating it.
I say this because if you want change in this regard, you have to change the treaties first.
Name a few please.
It seems like you just have a boner for thomas and think anything you can imagine that makes him look bad is true.
I suggest you look over this page pretty hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Also, unless you are using some non-standard definition of contemporaneous which should have a definition of Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time, then you will see documented evidence within that scope.
Jesus the man is said to have lived between 4 BC to 30 AD. you will note that the Babylonian Talmud makes mention of Jesus the man as early as 70 bc. that's only 40 years later and is certainly within the life time of someone living at the same time as Jesus. Another in the same was a letter by Mara bar Sarapion to his son estimated dating to 73 AD which again is in the same time. Then there is the works by Titus Flavius Josephus who was known to be born just 7 years after the man Jesus supposedly died who would have been in direct contact with people who were alive and had a chance to interact with the man Jesus.
And finally, there is the historical documentation by Tacitus who was alive in the time others were alive when Jesus was.
You are right that there is no know sources of information concerning Jesus being a real person from within his own lifetime. But to claim all opportunity to provide proof of his existence as a real person died with him is a bit silly. People were alive that lived longer then he did, people intermingled with those people. The record is pretty clear, a man called Jesus existed at the time Jesus the Christ supposedly did and it's known much in the same way that any ancient history is known, that this man did things similar to the claims of what Jesus the Chirst did..
Are you in knee jerk denial or is there something you know that no one else knows?
I mean it's easily found and documented with a google search, or for that matter, you could just look to see what wikipedia has to say on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
And no, wikipedia cites the sources in this. You can't bring up it's unreliability and other claims to dismiss it. This is perhaps one of the most vetted articles on it because of the nature of the content.
You suck it up buttercup. That's all the thrills and benefits of having a democracy elect your republic for of government. Now get out there and sign up more ignorant idiots to run to the polls come November and elect the candidate I convince their friends to tell them to vote for because they aren't smart enough to turn the lights out when they leave the room.
In case you missed the point of that, as long as we have idiots voting, we will have idiots elected. as long as idiots are elected, we will have the MPAA's of the world convincing them that their rights reign superior to ours. And if you think this is a republican/democrat/tea party thing, you just might be one of those idiots. This lunacy is universal in politics.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, There just isn't much or any evidence that he was the son of god or the messiah or anything special and supernatural. All that is a matter of faith.