I'm a broad strokes kind of guy and even I am perplexed why I know anything about that recession. I'm not really a party guy, more into recognizing exceptional individuals. I think Presidents Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter were my kind of hero-worshipable individuals, and (duh) Presidents in general tend to end up being these kinds of highly exceptional individuals, and even though the logic intimated here is fallicious, we do at least know more than a few Presidents were really quite brilliant, regardless of Presidential effectiveness or popularity.
Every election its the same kind of partisan-driven history re-write. Except that more and more we see attempts to destabilize even our belief in the reality of the two party system, that these parties are now corrupted or cross-pollinated to the point that, while still different, they become homogenous when you start removing the minutia criterium. So I like a perspective that is inscrutable... like a martian's perspective. Put an R and a D in front of a martian and they'll likely be unable to distinquish the two from each other, and perhaps just as unlikely to be able to distinquish humans from apes. Point here being that labels and qualities that we attribute to ideals, and the ideals themselves, usually end up meaning nothing at all in practice because the world is pretty complex... and so are people.
I want the information. I'm tired of the bullshit and I want the damn information. I'm not quite ready to start beating news anchors with umbrellas... but somedays... you know?
I'd expect a major reason commercial repurposing of the Space Shuttle fleet would fail would be a lack of need (the true seed of demand) for a commercial space program. Space programs in general are so expensive and have little practical value, which is why they are funded by governments in the interests of discovery. You can't really market something that no one would ever be able to afford, even if the demand was there... which I find hard to believe was ever there in the first place.
Alright, Rockcoon, challenge accepted. I am going to show with the facts in this post that you are both stubornly stupid, and unabashedly dishonest.
The Republicans tried to do something about it the whole way while the Democrats prevented anything from being done about it the whole way.
Yeah... that's complete bullshit. Sure... there was the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (94), which directed the Federal Reserve to issue regulations of mortgages, but Greenspan refused to use it. Greenspan has ever been against regulation in any form (again... my mind boggles why you mentioned him in a previous post as though it supported your falicious arguments).
Why are you trying to claim that the Republicans are to blame for deregulation when the Democrats were nearly unanimously in favor of the deregulation that you are blaming on the Republicans?
Complete lie wrapped in a question... nice work. But wow... you have it exactly backwards, retard.
My guess is that you really didnt know that the Democrats were gung-ho in favor if it because while they were nearly unanimously voting for the deregulation
Ah. Another flat lie. You really have a pliable relationship with the truth, don't you. Maybe if you keep repeating lies... it will actually change the past! Dipshit... that's not how it works... hundreds of millions of people already know the truth. You can attempt to rewrite history, but any fact checking will reveal your statements to be complete dogshit.
The fact remains that the Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate fannie and freddie from 2001
Again... regulating these firms by then would have done nothing to stop the recession, which was being brought on by banks and their insistence that derivatives not be regulated. ÂThe roots of the recession began in the 1980's under the Reagan Administration. Not sure if you are aware, but Reagan was Republican, and while Congress at the time was split about equally, he had a VERY strong conservative administration. The only thing that kept Reagan's debt increases in check was the Democratic House.
Here's the basic line of how we ended up with our dicks handed to us in 2008. In 1981, President Reagan appointed Donald Reagan (Meryl Lynch) to be his Treasury Secretary. The Reagan administration, supported by Wall Steet economists and financial lobbyists, started Âa 30 year period of financial deregulation. By 82, the Reagan administration had deregulated savings and loan companies, allowing them to make risky investments with their customers' money. By 1990, hundreds of savings and loan companies had failed. This cost taxpayers $124 BILLION.
Alan Greenspan is on record all over the 1980's in support of the deregulation and allowing these S&L's to make the risky investments. Reagan subsequently appointed Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, and this move was repeated by Bush1 and Clinton. Under Clinton, Greenspan continued the deregulation. Clinton's adminstration, naively trusting Greenspan's expertise (typical Democrat shit), allowed the finanical sector grow into just a few massive companies, where if any one failed, we'd all be in trouble.
You remember all the scandals in the late 90's early 00's with the cooking of books, defrauding of customers... $100BILLION of drug money funneled out of Mexico by Citibank... Fannie Mae overstated their earnings between 98 and 03 by $10BILLION.... you think there's ANY support for Democrats from those guys? No... they were propping up Republicans that shared their interest.
Democrats share blame as well, but its always the same thing with Democrats... always being bamboozled by Republicans, and can't get their shit together, even when they control both houses of Congress. To say Democrats helped cause the recession because they did nothing to stop it is like saying a witness is as morally responsible as a murderer because the witness didn't s
You keep bringing up worthless facts that were reactions to the recession. The recession didn't magically appear in 2008. The market peaked in 2005 and it was a steady decline in property values since. But there were obvious issues as early as 2000, when the mortgage debt consolidation started to go into overdrive, and banks were basically gambling with our money... gambling on us losing.
You keep touting McCain. The LONE Republican that stood against the deregulation. In 2006. When shit was already flying everywhere. Yeah, that guy lost a presidency because he was too middle of the road, which you can read as: he happily takes on the popular politics. And the idea was completely wrong headed.... this sort of legislation would not have prevented the recession which was already imminint by 2001
Greenspan... was a key player in the deregulation, Sherlock. I can't think of anyone more singularly responsible for that recession than him, so my mind boggles why you'd quote him as though he were some hybrid Republican or something. He's a fucking banker. He was one of the architects for the deregulation that began in the 80's.
Ah, more Republican bullshit... rewrite history with false interpretations, off-topic distraction and flat lies.
People like you give Republicans a bad name. Perhaps you should be asking yourself how you ended up being either so dishonest, or so delusional that you're oblivious.
Well, let me just tell you: I am not an "addictive personality"
Oh, and I suppose those aren't your opiate receptors, you're just holding them for someone, right? Just adding to your point... when it comes to opiate-derrived or opiate-simulated narcotics, everyone has an addictive personality.
Not sure what doctors you're talking about... but the pain doctors I have heard of were basically just tools of Big Pharm. These doctors helped create the massive scourge of oxycontin addiction in the US. Oxycontin is a drug conceived and created for terminally ill patients. But there just aren't enough terminally ill patents, and patents don't last forever... so... they give it to anyone and everyone for everything. OK, maybe not so much anymore now that we have pregnant women robbing pharmacies... but this shift in care where doctors care about their patients' addictions is a relatively new... of course good doctors have always cared, but the new addiction scrutiny that every doctor now seems to have only came about after oxycontin was invented and people who had no business being prescribed it became addicted.
As little as 100 years ago people were using perfectly legal opium compounds such as paregoric, with little or no social problems.
Actually, paregoric opiate addiction destroyed thousands of lives, so I don't know what you mean by "little or no social problems." Big problems... it caused lasting physiological and social damage to all that used it.
More than one Republican tried to stop the government-funded housing bubble years before it exploded
Wow, you have a way with history. The subprime lending bubble (2008 recession) was not the brainchild of Democrats, but rather was directly caused by systematic deregulation and removal of banking financial oversight by each Republican administration starting with President Reagan. This recession was set into motion and brought to fruition fully by Republicans and conservatives fighting the bad "Big Government" ideals of Democrats.
If that was a comet, when it emerged from the solar atmosphere, the tail would be blowing in the opposite direction... AWAY from the Sun, due to solar wind. Whatever the Hell that is, it is no comet.
I don't have to. There is no logical fallacy here. Nothing here has even been offerred up as an argument of logic. Do you even know what a fallacy is? Re-read my post. My post presents facts, not arguments.
analogous to the strobe light, dripping water thingy... where fast drops of water appear to be moving in slow motion because the strobe light only lets you see a drop at a certain point, and then another drop at a point a little further than the last... what looks like a slow motion drop of water is actually many drops of water, strobed.
If China and India suddenly left Earth, and all their 3 billion citizens just... left... we wouldn't starve. Why would we? Maybe our devices and telephone support would get expensive, but... starve? (btw... I wouldn't want to see that happen... as far as general peoples go, the Chinese and the Indians are peoples I'd like to keep around... not their governments, just the people, their culture and history.)
I work in the maritime industry and green initiatives are working hand in hand with rising oil prices to...
That is really great news. As you're probably aware, the maritime industry is a major MAJOR contributor to global pollution and carbon emmissions. 16 ships create more pollution than all the cars in the world. One wonders just how many groups of 16 ships are there in the maritime industry? Perhaps the maritime industry itself, descretly, should be included in whatever international agreements are made.
Strictly speaking, an American is any resident of either North or South America. So while you are technically correct, it makes more sense in this context to specify exactly which American country the original poster./pedant
Strickly speaking, NO ONE refers to South America as "America." Ever. When including both contenents, "Americas" is acceptable. However, "America" is always and without exception understood as 1) the United States of America; or 2) North America.
I thought the standard book industry line was that the cost of printing is only a few dollars, most of the cost is for authors, editors, copywriters, etc., and that's why e-books are priced very near print books.
Its a lie. Traditionally (prior to the existence of eBooks) printing, binding, and distribution account for ~80% of the cost of a real book.
This kind of maneuvring can also be seen a little with Apple and its insistence on using its own terminology.
Like AppStore. They could have avoided all kinds of trouble if they just would have said it is the iOS package manager, and its called "AppStore," rather than entirely glossing over the generic form of what it actually is. Had they done this, there would have been no hubbub about every mobile competitor all calling their package managers "appstores." Then again, its just as likely it was incompetant tech journalists that caused that.
But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.
uh... no, rather to a much greater and obvious extent. Star was nothing like Mac or Lisa. Every single tablet device announced or released since iPad's release is nearly identical to iPad, mimicking hw and user interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting a link relevant to your post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
Thx for posting... I stand corrected... turns out it wasn't exactly a First Amendment issue. Interesting.
I'm a broad strokes kind of guy and even I am perplexed why I know anything about that recession. I'm not really a party guy, more into recognizing exceptional individuals. I think Presidents Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter were my kind of hero-worshipable individuals, and (duh) Presidents in general tend to end up being these kinds of highly exceptional individuals, and even though the logic intimated here is fallicious, we do at least know more than a few Presidents were really quite brilliant, regardless of Presidential effectiveness or popularity.
Every election its the same kind of partisan-driven history re-write. Except that more and more we see attempts to destabilize even our belief in the reality of the two party system, that these parties are now corrupted or cross-pollinated to the point that, while still different, they become homogenous when you start removing the minutia criterium. So I like a perspective that is inscrutable... like a martian's perspective. Put an R and a D in front of a martian and they'll likely be unable to distinquish the two from each other, and perhaps just as unlikely to be able to distinquish humans from apes. Point here being that labels and qualities that we attribute to ideals, and the ideals themselves, usually end up meaning nothing at all in practice because the world is pretty complex... and so are people.
I want the information. I'm tired of the bullshit and I want the damn information. I'm not quite ready to start beating news anchors with umbrellas... but somedays... you know?
I'd expect a major reason commercial repurposing of the Space Shuttle fleet would fail would be a lack of need (the true seed of demand) for a commercial space program. Space programs in general are so expensive and have little practical value, which is why they are funded by governments in the interests of discovery. You can't really market something that no one would ever be able to afford, even if the demand was there... which I find hard to believe was ever there in the first place.
Alright, Rockcoon, challenge accepted. I am going to show with the facts in this post that you are both stubornly stupid, and unabashedly dishonest.
The Republicans tried to do something about it the whole way while the Democrats prevented anything from being done about it the whole way.
Yeah... that's complete bullshit. Sure... there was the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (94), which directed the Federal Reserve to issue regulations of mortgages, but Greenspan refused to use it. Greenspan has ever been against regulation in any form (again... my mind boggles why you mentioned him in a previous post as though it supported your falicious arguments).
Why are you trying to claim that the Republicans are to blame for deregulation when the Democrats were nearly unanimously in favor of the deregulation that you are blaming on the Republicans?
Complete lie wrapped in a question... nice work. But wow... you have it exactly backwards, retard.
My guess is that you really didnt know that the Democrats were gung-ho in favor if it because while they were nearly unanimously voting for the deregulation
Ah. Another flat lie. You really have a pliable relationship with the truth, don't you. Maybe if you keep repeating lies... it will actually change the past! Dipshit... that's not how it works... hundreds of millions of people already know the truth. You can attempt to rewrite history, but any fact checking will reveal your statements to be complete dogshit.
The fact remains that the Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate fannie and freddie from 2001
Again... regulating these firms by then would have done nothing to stop the recession, which was being brought on by banks and their insistence that derivatives not be regulated. ÂThe roots of the recession began in the 1980's under the Reagan Administration. Not sure if you are aware, but Reagan was Republican, and while Congress at the time was split about equally, he had a VERY strong conservative administration. The only thing that kept Reagan's debt increases in check was the Democratic House.
Here's the basic line of how we ended up with our dicks handed to us in 2008. In 1981, President Reagan appointed Donald Reagan (Meryl Lynch) to be his Treasury Secretary. The Reagan administration, supported by Wall Steet economists and financial lobbyists, started Âa 30 year period of financial deregulation. By 82, the Reagan administration had deregulated savings and loan companies, allowing them to make risky investments with their customers' money. By 1990, hundreds of savings and loan companies had failed. This cost taxpayers $124 BILLION.
Alan Greenspan is on record all over the 1980's in support of the deregulation and allowing these S&L's to make the risky investments. Reagan subsequently appointed Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, and this move was repeated by Bush1 and Clinton. Under Clinton, Greenspan continued the deregulation. Clinton's adminstration, naively trusting Greenspan's expertise (typical Democrat shit), allowed the finanical sector grow into just a few massive companies, where if any one failed, we'd all be in trouble.
You remember all the scandals in the late 90's early 00's with the cooking of books, defrauding of customers... $100BILLION of drug money funneled out of Mexico by Citibank... Fannie Mae overstated their earnings between 98 and 03 by $10BILLION.... you think there's ANY support for Democrats from those guys? No... they were propping up Republicans that shared their interest.
Democrats share blame as well, but its always the same thing with Democrats... always being bamboozled by Republicans, and can't get their shit together, even when they control both houses of Congress. To say Democrats helped cause the recession because they did nothing to stop it is like saying a witness is as morally responsible as a murderer because the witness didn't s
You keep bringing up worthless facts that were reactions to the recession. The recession didn't magically appear in 2008. The market peaked in 2005 and it was a steady decline in property values since. But there were obvious issues as early as 2000, when the mortgage debt consolidation started to go into overdrive, and banks were basically gambling with our money... gambling on us losing.
You keep touting McCain. The LONE Republican that stood against the deregulation. In 2006. When shit was already flying everywhere. Yeah, that guy lost a presidency because he was too middle of the road, which you can read as: he happily takes on the popular politics. And the idea was completely wrong headed.... this sort of legislation would not have prevented the recession which was already imminint by 2001
Greenspan... was a key player in the deregulation, Sherlock. I can't think of anyone more singularly responsible for that recession than him, so my mind boggles why you'd quote him as though he were some hybrid Republican or something. He's a fucking banker. He was one of the architects for the deregulation that began in the 80's.
Ah, more Republican bullshit... rewrite history with false interpretations, off-topic distraction and flat lies.
People like you give Republicans a bad name. Perhaps you should be asking yourself how you ended up being either so dishonest, or so delusional that you're oblivious.
Well, let me just tell you: I am not an "addictive personality"
Oh, and I suppose those aren't your opiate receptors, you're just holding them for someone, right? Just adding to your point... when it comes to opiate-derrived or opiate-simulated narcotics, everyone has an addictive personality.
Not sure what doctors you're talking about... but the pain doctors I have heard of were basically just tools of Big Pharm. These doctors helped create the massive scourge of oxycontin addiction in the US. Oxycontin is a drug conceived and created for terminally ill patients. But there just aren't enough terminally ill patents, and patents don't last forever... so ... they give it to anyone and everyone for everything. OK, maybe not so much anymore now that we have pregnant women robbing pharmacies... but this shift in care where doctors care about their patients' addictions is a relatively new... of course good doctors have always cared, but the new addiction scrutiny that every doctor now seems to have only came about after oxycontin was invented and people who had no business being prescribed it became addicted.
As little as 100 years ago people were using perfectly legal opium compounds such as paregoric, with little or no social problems.
Actually, paregoric opiate addiction destroyed thousands of lives, so I don't know what you mean by "little or no social problems." Big problems... it caused lasting physiological and social damage to all that used it.
More than one Republican tried to stop the government-funded housing bubble years before it exploded
Wow, you have a way with history. The subprime lending bubble (2008 recession) was not the brainchild of Democrats, but rather was directly caused by systematic deregulation and removal of banking financial oversight by each Republican administration starting with President Reagan. This recession was set into motion and brought to fruition fully by Republicans and conservatives fighting the bad "Big Government" ideals of Democrats.
not sure why you haven't been modded up... I was actually trolling for exactly this, thx.
If that was a comet, when it emerged from the solar atmosphere, the tail would be blowing in the opposite direction ... AWAY from the Sun, due to solar wind. Whatever the Hell that is, it is no comet.
I'm a painter from the 1940s
Sad... we have here another displaced (distempered? distemporalled?) victim of that damned Philadelphia Experiment.
Will mankind ever learn?
I don't have to. There is no logical fallacy here. Nothing here has even been offerred up as an argument of logic. Do you even know what a fallacy is? Re-read my post. My post presents facts, not arguments.
analogous to the strobe light, dripping water thingy... where fast drops of water appear to be moving in slow motion because the strobe light only lets you see a drop at a certain point, and then another drop at a point a little further than the last... what looks like a slow motion drop of water is actually many drops of water, strobed.
I really, really doubt they can see a photon from the side
FTFY (because all anything that sees can see is photons)
If Fox were fabricating these stories out of thin air...
They are. They admit that they do. A Florida appellate court upheld their right to do so in 2003, courtesy of the First Amendment.
Wait... you mean... you didn't know??!!! You've been ... you've actually been believing Fox News? No, really? SRSLY?? wow. just... wow. What a mindjob!
nope... just 20 years in the printing and publishing industry.
Manifest Destiny FTW
and let the rest of us starve.
If China and India suddenly left Earth, and all their 3 billion citizens just ... left... we wouldn't starve. Why would we? Maybe our devices and telephone support would get expensive, but... starve? (btw... I wouldn't want to see that happen... as far as general peoples go, the Chinese and the Indians are peoples I'd like to keep around... not their governments, just the people, their culture and history.)
I work in the maritime industry and green initiatives are working hand in hand with rising oil prices to...
That is really great news. As you're probably aware, the maritime industry is a major MAJOR contributor to global pollution and carbon emmissions. 16 ships create more pollution than all the cars in the world. One wonders just how many groups of 16 ships are there in the maritime industry? Perhaps the maritime industry itself, descretly, should be included in whatever international agreements are made.
Strictly speaking, an American is any resident of either North or South America. So while you are technically correct, it makes more sense in this context to specify exactly which American country the original poster. /pedant
Strickly speaking, NO ONE refers to South America as "America." Ever. When including both contenents, "Americas" is acceptable. However, "America" is always and without exception understood as 1) the United States of America; or 2) North America.
Now, hand over your fake pedant credentials.
I thought the standard book industry line was that the cost of printing is only a few dollars, most of the cost is for authors, editors, copywriters, etc., and that's why e-books are priced very near print books.
Its a lie. Traditionally (prior to the existence of eBooks) printing, binding, and distribution account for ~80% of the cost of a real book.
so instead of using a small tablet I find that a (comparatively cheap) 24" vertically mounted monitor is the best experience
Me too! Its far superior to iPads, and all other tablets, on airplanes, subways, busses, in coffee shops and in the classroom!!
This kind of maneuvring can also be seen a little with Apple and its insistence on using its own terminology.
Like AppStore. They could have avoided all kinds of trouble if they just would have said it is the iOS package manager, and its called "AppStore," rather than entirely glossing over the generic form of what it actually is. Had they done this, there would have been no hubbub about every mobile competitor all calling their package managers "appstores." Then again, its just as likely it was incompetant tech journalists that caused that.
But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.
uh... no, rather to a much greater and obvious extent. Star was nothing like Mac or Lisa. Every single tablet device announced or released since iPad's release is nearly identical to iPad, mimicking hw and user interface.