Your link is not evidence of the claim you just made. The word 'Only' is the problem. As near as I can tell, without reading the entire blog archives, he only infers that it's politically motivated without proof, but nonetheless does not claim that democrats never do that.
Damn it... lost my first response by accident. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except I've seen no evidence that Democrat politicians are any better on this than their counterparts, unlike some of their constituents. As far as health coverage goes, that's not a right in the first place, so it doesn't quite work. I'd be somewhat happy to see equal privileges as well as rights, but i'd rather the government was uninvolved in marriage in the first place. Extending COBRA to straights is not an example of harm to you, it's an example of a benefit to someone else, and in no way is failure to provide that benefit taking any freedoms from you.
As far as police go, compare and contrast with child protective services. I'm not re-digging up the links, but there are cases of children being taken and kept with no evidence (amber james), being placed in foster care instead of with the father in spite of laws which should have said otherwise (emma unknownlastname). I vaguley recall but couldn't easily find the link to a case of an infant being removed from the home and placed in foster care, the parents successfully proving that they weren't in fact abusive, and the judge deciding it would be too great a hardship to return him after 2 years. I believe, based on my own limited experience, CPS is dominated by Democrats to an even greater extent than Police departments are dominated by Republicans, due in no small part to the nature of people who seek social services jobs.
Health benefits are not rights, so your example there sort of fails, although it would be nice if gays and straights had equal privileges too (I'm against marriage, both straight and gay, being a province or concern of government in the first place). Extending COBRA is not an instance of harm to you, it's an instance of giving benefits to someone else, which is not the same thing. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except that I haven't seen much proof that Democrat Politicians (unlike the rank and file) do anything more than pay lip service to equality here.
As for the police, compare and contrast with a Judge who takes away a child because of a complaint lacking any evidence. Or because a mother gave it a light swat on the behind. Or ignore there own laws and place a child with foster parents instead of her actual father. I vaguely recall at least one case of Family services taking away an infant, later to be proven wrong, only for the parents to be denied the return of custody because it's been 2 years and it would be too great a hardship on the child to be returned to the family that never did anything to justify his loss in the first place. I can't find the link on that one, but a quick search does turn up numerous other abuses by child protective services. I'm pretty sure CPS is in fact dominated by democrats in most areas, probably more heavily than police departments are dominated by republicans.
Insightful? Really? The last paragraph was fine, but use of the term "Rethuglican" is pretty strong evidence of idiocy. Also, which party was it that pushed for Prohibition back in the day?
No, you were probably modded flamebait for pretending that the Republicans and Tea Party have actually demonstrated racist policies as a group, rather than a few fringe elements within it which have. Even the strong borders people mostly disavow racist policies. It also might have to do with your failure to mention that the party associated with the KKK 50-60 years ago were Democrats, not Republicans, subtly indicating the opposite in a post that was strongly anti-republican.
The republican party has only been strongly associated with Stormfront level racisms and thuggery in the heads of far left partisans.
Gotta love how the GP was insightful despite using gratuitous insults, and you got modded troll despite noting a relevant exception to his list. Granted, it's possible that he would actually agree on guns too so your. The use of 'Rethuglican' strongly indicates a left winger rather than a libertarian though, so I wouldn't think assuming as much should be held against your post.
After reading further, it looks like the tripling happened before obama took office, so I retract that statement. Obama can't wash his hands, since he voted for the expensive budget items beforehand as a senator, but the stimulus was not as large a portion as I thought. I'm assuming the stimulus $787 billion was for the life of the program, so that it's contribution that year was less. Otherwise, I don't see how they can reconcile their numbers.
I believe the GP was misremembering a claim about debt which is mostly true. I think the second time frame at that link is more relevant, as it includes spending which was specially approved after Obama such as stimulus packages, but they all involve projections about the future, which may not be accurate.
I don't think it's remotely possible that total spending by Obama to date to exceed everything spent under Bush's term. But his annual deficits are vastly larger than anything during bush's term. The stimulus package tripled the deficit in 09, so it's fair to ascribe 2/3 of that spike to Obama. The following years are all his.
OTOH, the president may have influence, but congress should be the primary consideration. Ascribing the deficit to the president is like taking a program you dislike, putting it at the top of spending, and comparing it to revenue by year to prove that if we just didn't have that particular program we would great! It's fundamentally misleading.
Car insurance is required as a condition of driving on government owned roads. Obamacare requires health insurance as a condition of living. There's a fairly large difference there.
Well, I hardly ever put in effort personally. Following my natural inclinations to, like, think about things and stuff, is like, super easy. For the humor impaired, the grammar in the previous sentence was intended to be ironic.
I'm not saying that effort and work can't help, but the original article seems to assume that beauty is purely an inborn thing and intelligence is a reward for hard work, and it's just not true. I don't personally value beauty all that much, so I put little effort into my appearance, but I recognize that some people do put forth effort and that it pays off. I'm also not saying that everyone can be intelligent with little work, only that it's possible for individuals.
The real issue is the definition of public places. A privately owned bar is NOT a public place, even if open to the general public.
On the broader point, I like to phrase it this way: "There is no right to live, only a right not to be killed." There is a crucial difference between the 2. If the former existed, there would be situations in which one person having it would come into conflict with someone else having it. Any so called right which can not be equally held by everyone is not truly a right.
No, no cutting and pasting of crap. I went and checked what happened with the adjustments at all stations myself. That put me firmly in the skeptical side. I did so precisely because of the Darwin station discussion.
I can go find the links where Michael Mann said he didn't know of anyone splicing thermometer Data onto tree ring data, and the paper where someone did precisely that. I believe it was Phil Jones. However, there isn't any point. You clearly won't accept that there is any reason to doubt the methods of prominent climate scientists, since you engaged in a content free post to dismiss mine.
The fact remains that divergence is evidence that the original fit was a statistical artifact. They continue using the original fit for tree ring data and claim that it was accurate up until that point, and quite inventively explain other reasons for it instead of accepting that their historical data is flawed
Try the same experiment in reverse. Claim that there is no evidence for the existence of god. See how long it takes for some to claim that because you don't believe in god, you must be completely amoral.
I think you'll find that the existence of extremists who happen to agree with you is not your fault. The GP didn't associate himself with certain groups.
I accept that there may be a good explanation for the following, but I have never encountered one. If you examine the adjusted versus raw USHCN and GHCN temperature data, the Adjustments have a steady upward trend for the last century. Why? Using naive averaging with the USHCN, the adjustments are just enough to bring the spike in the 30s below the spike in the 90s, while the raw data shows the 30s as marginally warmer. This pattern is deeply suspicious.
It's especially suspicious after the debacle about the Darwin station in Australia that Watts pointed out. He was accused of cherry picking, and realclimate.org proceeded to cherry pick their own data to show no warming trend in adjustments for a subset of weather stations. His single station choice demonstrated how hard it was to determine exactly why a given station was adjusted the way it did. Since his accusers were focusing on cherry picking, there was no reason to avoid using all stations to see if their was a pattern, except that they didn't like what using all stations demonstrated.
What the east Anglia emails did show was scientists who believed in a particular explanaion, didn't really know what was going on as well as they claimed, and who were disinclined to work with anyone who questioned their data or methods. They did adjust presentation of data to fit narratives, and used tricks that other climate scientists said they never did, like combining temperature data and proxy data into one curve. Stonewalling is bad even if it isn't some sort of plot.
Why did they do this? Because proxy data was demonstrated to be unreliable by what they call the divergence problem, but they didn't want to give up their tree ring data because they didn't have anything better to fall back on. If you calibrate data against one set of hypthetically linked data (pre 70s), then find that it doesn't match against a different set (1980+) it's not legitimate to pretend your calibration is correct. The inconvenience of giving up all the data you've been working with for a decade doesn't make it OK.
Well, that is the only way to produce new virgins, and dead people are quite peaceful, so I suppose that's a decent analogy. I somehow doubt that's how you intended it though.:)
As I understand it, academia is the set of colleges and universities, which engage in academic pursuits.
To be clear, I think academics as a method is great. I would argue that our current set of academic institutions provide numerous pseudo-intellectual areas of study which lack any actual understanding of the real world, and in some cases deny reality in favor of nonsense, or deny that there is such a thing as reality. Marxist professors. People who think that if they could just compel everyone to be like themselves, life would be hunky dory, and that their preferences are actually some sort of objective good. Elitist nonsense like that found in "What's the matter with Kansas?". Most forms of macroeconomics which suffer from a pretense of knowledge about an inherently chaotic system. That sort of thing is what I would call pseudo intellectual ivory tower nonsense.
There are intellectuals who never went to college, and there are non-intellectual people in the college system. Their may be a correlation, but they aren't the same thing.
Ok, lets put that knowledge on the plus side. If you had to take out 100k in loans to get that knowledge, and the knowledge won't get you a job that will let you repay the loans, then there was a negative return on investment unless you value the knowledge more than not being in debt for the rest of your life. If you don't need to take loans, feel free to study what you want.
Because it serves the interests of the people who actually work in those programs to make certain there is always a need for them. It's an instance of the principal agent problem in part. It may not be malicious on the individual employee level, but people are great at rationalizing decisions as helping others when it really helps themselves. You might want to consider this sort of issue as applied to all other government programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Your link is not evidence of the claim you just made. The word 'Only' is the problem. As near as I can tell, without reading the entire blog archives, he only infers that it's politically motivated without proof, but nonetheless does not claim that democrats never do that.
Damn it... lost my first response by accident. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except I've seen no evidence that Democrat politicians are any better on this than their counterparts, unlike some of their constituents. As far as health coverage goes, that's not a right in the first place, so it doesn't quite work. I'd be somewhat happy to see equal privileges as well as rights, but i'd rather the government was uninvolved in marriage in the first place. Extending COBRA to straights is not an example of harm to you, it's an example of a benefit to someone else, and in no way is failure to provide that benefit taking any freedoms from you.
As far as police go, compare and contrast with child protective services. I'm not re-digging up the links, but there are cases of children being taken and kept with no evidence (amber james), being placed in foster care instead of with the father in spite of laws which should have said otherwise (emma unknownlastname). I vaguley recall but couldn't easily find the link to a case of an infant being removed from the home and placed in foster care, the parents successfully proving that they weren't in fact abusive, and the judge deciding it would be too great a hardship to return him after 2 years. I believe, based on my own limited experience, CPS is dominated by Democrats to an even greater extent than Police departments are dominated by Republicans, due in no small part to the nature of people who seek social services jobs.
Health benefits are not rights, so your example there sort of fails, although it would be nice if gays and straights had equal privileges too (I'm against marriage, both straight and gay, being a province or concern of government in the first place). Extending COBRA is not an instance of harm to you, it's an instance of giving benefits to someone else, which is not the same thing. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except that I haven't seen much proof that Democrat Politicians (unlike the rank and file) do anything more than pay lip service to equality here.
As for the police, compare and contrast with a Judge who takes away a child because of a complaint lacking any evidence. Or because a mother gave it a light swat on the behind. Or ignore there own laws and place a child with foster parents instead of her actual father. I vaguely recall at least one case of Family services taking away an infant, later to be proven wrong, only for the parents to be denied the return of custody because it's been 2 years and it would be too great a hardship on the child to be returned to the family that never did anything to justify his loss in the first place. I can't find the link on that one, but a quick search does turn up numerous other abuses by child protective services. I'm pretty sure CPS is in fact dominated by democrats in most areas, probably more heavily than police departments are dominated by republicans.
Insightful? Really? The last paragraph was fine, but use of the term "Rethuglican" is pretty strong evidence of idiocy. Also, which party was it that pushed for Prohibition back in the day?
No, you were probably modded flamebait for pretending that the Republicans and Tea Party have actually demonstrated racist policies as a group, rather than a few fringe elements within it which have. Even the strong borders people mostly disavow racist policies. It also might have to do with your failure to mention that the party associated with the KKK 50-60 years ago were Democrats, not Republicans, subtly indicating the opposite in a post that was strongly anti-republican.
The republican party has only been strongly associated with Stormfront level racisms and thuggery in the heads of far left partisans.
Gotta love how the GP was insightful despite using gratuitous insults, and you got modded troll despite noting a relevant exception to his list. Granted, it's possible that he would actually agree on guns too so your. The use of 'Rethuglican' strongly indicates a left winger rather than a libertarian though, so I wouldn't think assuming as much should be held against your post.
After reading further, it looks like the tripling happened before obama took office, so I retract that statement. Obama can't wash his hands, since he voted for the expensive budget items beforehand as a senator, but the stimulus was not as large a portion as I thought. I'm assuming the stimulus $787 billion was for the life of the program, so that it's contribution that year was less. Otherwise, I don't see how they can reconcile their numbers.
I believe the GP was misremembering a claim about debt which is mostly true. I think the second time frame at that link is more relevant, as it includes spending which was specially approved after Obama such as stimulus packages, but they all involve projections about the future, which may not be accurate.
I don't think it's remotely possible that total spending by Obama to date to exceed everything spent under Bush's term. But his annual deficits are vastly larger than anything during bush's term. The stimulus package tripled the deficit in 09, so it's fair to ascribe 2/3 of that spike to Obama. The following years are all his.
OTOH, the president may have influence, but congress should be the primary consideration. Ascribing the deficit to the president is like taking a program you dislike, putting it at the top of spending, and comparing it to revenue by year to prove that if we just didn't have that particular program we would great! It's fundamentally misleading.
Except that that's NOT a claim of the Oath Keepers as a group.
You didn't actually read the Citizen's United case if you think it was a matter of "whatever works best for business". Look it up some time.
Car insurance is required as a condition of driving on government owned roads. Obamacare requires health insurance as a condition of living. There's a fairly large difference there.
They also added the desktop to the alt-tab list.
Well, I hardly ever put in effort personally. Following my natural inclinations to, like, think about things and stuff, is like, super easy. For the humor impaired, the grammar in the previous sentence was intended to be ironic.
I'm not saying that effort and work can't help, but the original article seems to assume that beauty is purely an inborn thing and intelligence is a reward for hard work, and it's just not true. I don't personally value beauty all that much, so I put little effort into my appearance, but I recognize that some people do put forth effort and that it pays off. I'm also not saying that everyone can be intelligent with little work, only that it's possible for individuals.
The real issue is the definition of public places. A privately owned bar is NOT a public place, even if open to the general public.
On the broader point, I like to phrase it this way: "There is no right to live, only a right not to be killed." There is a crucial difference between the 2. If the former existed, there would be situations in which one person having it would come into conflict with someone else having it. Any so called right which can not be equally held by everyone is not truly a right.
One can be intelligent with little effort, and and awful lot of beautiful people spend a lot of time on their appearance.
No, no cutting and pasting of crap. I went and checked what happened with the adjustments at all stations myself. That put me firmly in the skeptical side. I did so precisely because of the Darwin station discussion.
I can go find the links where Michael Mann said he didn't know of anyone splicing thermometer Data onto tree ring data, and the paper where someone did precisely that. I believe it was Phil Jones. However, there isn't any point. You clearly won't accept that there is any reason to doubt the methods of prominent climate scientists, since you engaged in a content free post to dismiss mine.
The fact remains that divergence is evidence that the original fit was a statistical artifact. They continue using the original fit for tree ring data and claim that it was accurate up until that point, and quite inventively explain other reasons for it instead of accepting that their historical data is flawed
Try the same experiment in reverse. Claim that there is no evidence for the existence of god. See how long it takes for some to claim that because you don't believe in god, you must be completely amoral.
I think you'll find that the existence of extremists who happen to agree with you is not your fault. The GP didn't associate himself with certain groups.
I accept that there may be a good explanation for the following, but I have never encountered one. If you examine the adjusted versus raw USHCN and GHCN temperature data, the Adjustments have a steady upward trend for the last century. Why? Using naive averaging with the USHCN, the adjustments are just enough to bring the spike in the 30s below the spike in the 90s, while the raw data shows the 30s as marginally warmer. This pattern is deeply suspicious.
It's especially suspicious after the debacle about the Darwin station in Australia that Watts pointed out. He was accused of cherry picking, and realclimate.org proceeded to cherry pick their own data to show no warming trend in adjustments for a subset of weather stations. His single station choice demonstrated how hard it was to determine exactly why a given station was adjusted the way it did. Since his accusers were focusing on cherry picking, there was no reason to avoid using all stations to see if their was a pattern, except that they didn't like what using all stations demonstrated.
What the east Anglia emails did show was scientists who believed in a particular explanaion, didn't really know what was going on as well as they claimed, and who were disinclined to work with anyone who questioned their data or methods. They did adjust presentation of data to fit narratives, and used tricks that other climate scientists said they never did, like combining temperature data and proxy data into one curve. Stonewalling is bad even if it isn't some sort of plot.
Why did they do this? Because proxy data was demonstrated to be unreliable by what they call the divergence problem, but they didn't want to give up their tree ring data because they didn't have anything better to fall back on. If you calibrate data against one set of hypthetically linked data (pre 70s), then find that it doesn't match against a different set (1980+) it's not legitimate to pretend your calibration is correct. The inconvenience of giving up all the data you've been working with for a decade doesn't make it OK.
Providing material goods for their citizens is not actually a primary function of government.
Well, that is the only way to produce new virgins, and dead people are quite peaceful, so I suppose that's a decent analogy. I somehow doubt that's how you intended it though. :)
Food irradiation, which is almost nonexistant in the eu and probably can't be used while still calling the foods organic.
As I understand it, academia is the set of colleges and universities, which engage in academic pursuits.
To be clear, I think academics as a method is great. I would argue that our current set of academic institutions provide numerous pseudo-intellectual areas of study which lack any actual understanding of the real world, and in some cases deny reality in favor of nonsense, or deny that there is such a thing as reality. Marxist professors. People who think that if they could just compel everyone to be like themselves, life would be hunky dory, and that their preferences are actually some sort of objective good. Elitist nonsense like that found in "What's the matter with Kansas?". Most forms of macroeconomics which suffer from a pretense of knowledge about an inherently chaotic system. That sort of thing is what I would call pseudo intellectual ivory tower nonsense.
There are intellectuals who never went to college, and there are non-intellectual people in the college system. Their may be a correlation, but they aren't the same thing.
Ok, lets put that knowledge on the plus side. If you had to take out 100k in loans to get that knowledge, and the knowledge won't get you a job that will let you repay the loans, then there was a negative return on investment unless you value the knowledge more than not being in debt for the rest of your life. If you don't need to take loans, feel free to study what you want.
That's not anti-intellectual, it's anti academia. Intellectual != college educated.
Because it serves the interests of the people who actually work in those programs to make certain there is always a need for them. It's an instance of the principal agent problem in part. It may not be malicious on the individual employee level, but people are great at rationalizing decisions as helping others when it really helps themselves. You might want to consider this sort of issue as applied to all other government programs.