Stop the bullshit. Very few people did not vote for Barack because he is Black. I for one didn't vote for him because of all his wealth redistribution rhetoric and the fact that his policies will ruin the economy which is already hurting. Notice the stock market this morning?
No, that didn't occur to me. You know why? Because it is not true. All I want from a publication is to cover both sides of an argument. If there is a divisive issue then present both side of that issue and let the reporting and the facts speak for themselves. Liberal Bias in the media DOES occur. I may be right leaning but when it comes to news I just want the facts. I can decide for myself on issues. I don't vote straight party lines on anything. I didn't vote party lines on the propositions in California I just voted on.
If the New York Times wants editorials it should keep them in the editorial section. But then it should let people respond to those opinions and print those responses too. That's all I ask.
Because I actually hate 99% of what the New York Times prints and I don't support them going forward as a business. They threw objective journalism in the trash a long time ago.
Uhm, there is an excellent chance that he would NEVER be able to afford all that software if he actually had to buy it at commercial going rates. So the free software was a great tool which was also an enabler in this situation.
I read the analysis and it was mostly fair. My point is that I always am skeptical of what comes from the New York Times because of their obvious bias in the past. In addition most people won't take it seriously so the GP should have linked to a REAL independent source instead of one with a vested interest in one candidate winning.
Thanks for making all my points for me today. I really appreciate it. You just made my point as to why I voted for John McCain and that we should reduce or remove Capital Gains taxes. How you did that is that you said I should do something about bringing foreign money back in. Well count me as done. Reducing or removing Capital Gains taxes spurs investment both from Americans and from foreign investors. Investment can then lead to technology which gives the US an advantage in making a product or selling a service and allows it to be superior to that of a nation which is only relying on cheap labor to be competitive.
Some of them do. I'm not against regulation and more power to the stockholders. I agree that corporations sometimes get shortsighted but in the overall picture they are the mechanism through which growth happens.
That is not necessarily true. Consumers may spend money on imported goods. In addition corporations may export goods and make other countries citizens pay for it.
To raise revenues, in addition to repealing the top tier of the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Obama would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Nope. Obviously Obama wants to reduce the incentive to invest in the future to zero in the United States thereby driving money out of the US economy and into other nations economies.
no an Ad Hominem fallacy is saying that so and so is an adulterer and therefore his arguments are false. Obviously one has nothing to do with the other. But calling out bias especially when there is past proof of it is totally acceptable. It doesn't invalidate the argument but it draws attention to the possible conflict of interest and world view of the people doing the analyzing.
Right which is why economic forces SPREAD PEOPLE OUT. The prices to live in New York grow too much and now the suburbs look like a much nicer alternative. Living in a metropolis may be convenient but it has it's downsides too including higher cost of living, mostly higher crime, and increased traffic. If you can't afford to live somewhere then move. That's why I live in Riverside Country and not Orange County.
Saying that someone is biased is not an Ad Hominem fallacy. It is pretty easy to show that throughout their course of existence as a newspaper, the New York Times has time and time again fallen on the left of center and at times left of left on the political spectrum. Past performance dictates that all future articles from that rag be viewed in scrutiny to analyze just where they are coming from.
PBS and public radio sometimes push a liberal agenda. There is a REASON conservatives don't give as much money to them. Besides there are better charitable causes like disaster relief, small starter loans, gifts of animals and training on how to use them, disease prevention etc.
You CAN live on minimum wage. What you cannot do is live by yourself (get some roomates), support a family of 15 children (buy some condoms), or support your brother and his family and your uncle and his family and his 5 closest friends and 10024 of their most cherished cockroaches.
Bullshit. That doesn't take into effect that since my bosses personal and corporate taxes were both raised under Obama that he can no longer afford to keep me on and now I'm unemployed.
So you're happy for rich corporations or individuals to get tax rebates (I don't know much about the US tax system, or any tax system to be fair, so I just have to go by people whining about the rich being made even richer through political corruption), but you don't want poorer people to get any breaks? Nice.
See slashdot, it is statements like these that make me lose all my faith in the American Public to finally GET IT. The thread is about the economy. Who do you think grows the economy? Corporations do. Who do you think employs most of the workforce? Corporations and Small Businesses do. You want the economy to do better but you try to make the entities capable of doing good out to be some mythical evil creature who only does bad. Corporations and Small Business need to do well for the economy to do well. So why not support the candidate who will promote growth and ease the burden on corporations and small businesses?
Same in California. On the 5 freeway going North but many many miles after you leave San Diego there is a Border Patrol Checkpoint. Most of the time it is not in operation though.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop the bullshit. Very few people did not vote for Barack because he is Black. I for one didn't vote for him because of all his wealth redistribution rhetoric and the fact that his policies will ruin the economy which is already hurting. Notice the stock market this morning?
No, that didn't occur to me. You know why? Because it is not true. All I want from a publication is to cover both sides of an argument. If there is a divisive issue then present both side of that issue and let the reporting and the facts speak for themselves. Liberal Bias in the media DOES occur. I may be right leaning but when it comes to news I just want the facts. I can decide for myself on issues. I don't vote straight party lines on anything. I didn't vote party lines on the propositions in California I just voted on.
If the New York Times wants editorials it should keep them in the editorial section. But then it should let people respond to those opinions and print those responses too. That's all I ask.
Because I actually hate 99% of what the New York Times prints and I don't support them going forward as a business. They threw objective journalism in the trash a long time ago.
Uhm, there is an excellent chance that he would NEVER be able to afford all that software if he actually had to buy it at commercial going rates. So the free software was a great tool which was also an enabler in this situation.
Yes but instead of the word "with" they could have used the word "using" and then it would have made sense and been a better pun at the same time.
"The Kurdish population welcomed the American troops in 2003 by holding celebrations and dancing in the streets" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people#In_Iraq
I read the analysis and it was mostly fair. My point is that I always am skeptical of what comes from the New York Times because of their obvious bias in the past. In addition most people won't take it seriously so the GP should have linked to a REAL independent source instead of one with a vested interest in one candidate winning.
Thanks for making all my points for me today. I really appreciate it. You just made my point as to why I voted for John McCain and that we should reduce or remove Capital Gains taxes. How you did that is that you said I should do something about bringing foreign money back in. Well count me as done. Reducing or removing Capital Gains taxes spurs investment both from Americans and from foreign investors. Investment can then lead to technology which gives the US an advantage in making a product or selling a service and allows it to be superior to that of a nation which is only relying on cheap labor to be competitive.
Some of them do. I'm not against regulation and more power to the stockholders. I agree that corporations sometimes get shortsighted but in the overall picture they are the mechanism through which growth happens.
That is not necessarily true. Consumers may spend money on imported goods. In addition corporations may export goods and make other countries citizens pay for it.
Nope. Obviously Obama wants to reduce the incentive to invest in the future to zero in the United States thereby driving money out of the US economy and into other nations economies.
no an Ad Hominem fallacy is saying that so and so is an adulterer and therefore his arguments are false. Obviously one has nothing to do with the other. But calling out bias especially when there is past proof of it is totally acceptable. It doesn't invalidate the argument but it draws attention to the possible conflict of interest and world view of the people doing the analyzing.
Right which is why economic forces SPREAD PEOPLE OUT. The prices to live in New York grow too much and now the suburbs look like a much nicer alternative. Living in a metropolis may be convenient but it has it's downsides too including higher cost of living, mostly higher crime, and increased traffic. If you can't afford to live somewhere then move. That's why I live in Riverside Country and not Orange County.
Saying that someone is biased is not an Ad Hominem fallacy. It is pretty easy to show that throughout their course of existence as a newspaper, the New York Times has time and time again fallen on the left of center and at times left of left on the political spectrum. Past performance dictates that all future articles from that rag be viewed in scrutiny to analyze just where they are coming from.
PBS and public radio sometimes push a liberal agenda. There is a REASON conservatives don't give as much money to them. Besides there are better charitable causes like disaster relief, small starter loans, gifts of animals and training on how to use them, disease prevention etc.
You CAN live on minimum wage. What you cannot do is live by yourself (get some roomates), support a family of 15 children (buy some condoms), or support your brother and his family and your uncle and his family and his 5 closest friends and 10024 of their most cherished cockroaches.
Bullshit. That doesn't take into effect that since my bosses personal and corporate taxes were both raised under Obama that he can no longer afford to keep me on and now I'm unemployed.
See slashdot, it is statements like these that make me lose all my faith in the American Public to finally GET IT. The thread is about the economy. Who do you think grows the economy? Corporations do. Who do you think employs most of the workforce? Corporations and Small Businesses do. You want the economy to do better but you try to make the entities capable of doing good out to be some mythical evil creature who only does bad. Corporations and Small Business need to do well for the economy to do well. So why not support the candidate who will promote growth and ease the burden on corporations and small businesses?
Ya, tell that to the BBC. Jackasses, the lot of em'.
You should have grabbed your closest contract law book and dropped it on her foot. Those suckers are heavy too.
Same in California. On the 5 freeway going North but many many miles after you leave San Diego there is a Border Patrol Checkpoint. Most of the time it is not in operation though.
I feel exactly the same way. Until then I see them a a self serving organization that is just another political lobby with no real moral compass.
Rewriting history again? Everybody knows it was Mel Gibson who delivered the victory to the colonial militias by using guerrilla warfare.
Lane Splitting is legal. Motorcycles should only do it when speed is lower though. Lane splitting at 85 mph is a little sketchy
pfft. 80 mph is the standard in Southern California. Welcome to the real world bub.
But they are selling a service. There are hundreds of transactions here. This is obviously FRAUD.