Well, the answer, had you actually chose to actually listen to bushes statements was that 9/11 caused a change in policy away from tolerating or ignoring terrorist sponsoring nations and towards overt military action against such nations, and was not tied to Al Qaeda specifically. Although not a sponsor of Al Qaeda, Iraq did sponsor terrorism by rewarding the families of palestinian suicide bombers and harboring abu-nidal, among others. Popular opinion got him to come to congress for a specific resolution about Iraq, although he originally thought the GWoT covered it.
How about "Right = Economic growth is the best method to improve quality of life in the long run"? I don't think you will fine any right-winger who will go along with 'no matter the cost'.
Yep, and you and the rest of society are free to not pay for my care in those circumstances. That doesn't give you a right to punish me for doing it. For the sake of clarity, by punish, I mean causing me harm in some fashion.
"And why should we assume that Joe Public can understand science?" Because hiding real science from Joe Public guarantees that he will never learn to understand it. The public may be confused by complicated facts and statistics, but sugar coating and hiding those facts just reinforces their flawed understanding of the world around them.
It's amusing that you think government intervention would make a free market. By defintion, if the government uses force to control what happens, it's a constrained market, not free. You may not feel that the current, less constrained, market isn't producing the result you personally would prefer... but that's one of the things about markets with multitudes of individuals, someone is generally going to be unsatisfied.
Here's one of the things that have been explicitly measured. The number of people admitted to hospitals does not correlate with full moons, but nonetheless numerous nurses and physicans think it does. (the link is just one example, there are others) If the actual measured numbers do not match peoples memories, that's evidence of faulty memories. People are subject to all sorts of bias effects when trying to interpret and detect correlations. Effectively, there's no particular reason to believe that long existing common knowledge is actually correct without evidence, given how easy it is for people to fall into those sorts of traps. It's not patronizing or idiotic to point out that everyone's perceptions are capable of being fooled. Denying that possibility is far more foolish.
Well, I need to at least partially withdraw my argument. Here is at least one post critiquing the city journal article, along with the preceding blog post.. Having the actual questions posted, I have to agree that except possibly for the alcohol question, this particular study wasn't nearly as suspect as presented. However, the alcohol questions are pretty big, since "I got drunk and changed my mind" is vastly different from "I got drunk and passed out". I also don't see where Koss claimed 1 in 4... but it could be that the city journal article referred to a different survey by Koss.
The 1in4 statistic has been around quite a bit longer. According to CityJournal, it was originally generated by determining a set of behaviours which qualified as rape, asking women about what they dealt with, and then reported it even though the vast majority denied that they had been raped. Much like the re-definition of racism so that underpriviliged minorities can't be racist, this is little more than academic fraud.
I can't quickly find the studies you are referring to. I strongly suspect that they used the same flawed methodology and redefinition, rather than point blank asking if they had been the victim of rape or attempted rape.
Bullshit. In my local area, we had LOTS of restaurants which were entirely non-smoking. You did have a choice. It may be that for some specific types of restaurants (i.e. bars) there weren't no smoking version. That just means there wasn't enough demand. It's no more the governments job to guarantee smoke free bars than it is to guarantee a supply of your favorite brand of cereal.
I'm just going to direct you to a message which already challenged this particular claim. Although it looks like it was posted at the same time more or less.
I second c6gunner's comments.:) I apologize for being a bit snarky. And I thank you for not taking me to task for misspelling Exoon. I swear I hit prieview...
Incidentally, this is why I like message boards sometimes. People will post up their sources for you. I now feel compelled to back up that 10%. Keeping 9.41 out of 102.3 billion just doesn't seem wrong to me.
I'm not following your logic here. Apparently it runs as follows:
1. The war in iraq is expensive.
2. A Rxxon is making a bunch of money. (Although it's only about 10% of gross sales, which is a bit LOW for most companies)
3. Iraq is succesfully producing oil, and several companines including exxon want in on it.
4. No really, exxon is looking to expand in Iraq.
Therefore, the entire war to date has been for the benefit of exxon.
Really, how does that follow? They haven't yet begun operating in iraq, they dont' currently buy oil from iraq, but somehow the war has been a major source of profit for them? Please show a shred of evidence that the war has caused them to become more profitable, as opposed to increased demand and other suppliers.
Ok, "goverment is taking money to put in social programs" fits your definition of socialism. As I indicated, that demands command economic decisions as well. In other words, they are tied to each other, and are therefor not orthogonal. In math terms, the dot product of 2 non-zero values along both scales is also non-zero.
I'll grant you that land as property is government based. I have no problem with this. I still claim ownership of anything I produce using that land. If I have ownership of myself, then I own my own labor. If I own my labor, then I own products of that labor. If you prefer, if I don't own the products of my labor, then I don't in truth own my labor itself, and thus I don't own myself. The labor theory of value is bull, but the labor theory of ownership is much more robust.
Another way to look at it, homesteading at various times was protected by government action. That doesn't mean the right to live and use land didn't exist without the government protection, much like the right to speak freely exists even without government efforts to protect that right.
You say you do similar work to your dad. What precisely do you do? Other people have made guesses about your spending habits and tech. I'm guessing that you get paid less than your dad correcting for inflation for one reason or another. It may be that your job is in less demand, which would intuitively indicate you will be doing worse than your parents did doing the same thing. That doesn't mean that people on the whole aren't better off than their parents, you may be an anecdotal exception to the rule.
Yes, I would. Forcing congress to get a 2/3 majority for everything would be beneficial in the long run, as you wouldn't be able to get away with party-line voting.
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
There's a reason it was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not "Operation Iraqi Disarmament". The idea was there from the get go as one of many factors in the decision to invade. We also had all the violations, which were all mentioned in the runup, as well as WMD programs, which he really was trying to keep in place. Despite all the hand wringing about yellowcake from Niger, it's important to note that Wilson was told that Iraq had in fact sought to acquire some. They had been rebuffed, but they had made the effort.
That being said said, the GP ost was flawed. I can't say that he personally didn't hear these predictions, but the ones that everyone heard were predictions of millions (note the plural) of deaths and refugees, and extended periods of major combat, NOT predictions of an long lasting insurgency after we took out the existing government and instituted a relatively democratic replacement.
They aren't orthogonal. If the goverment is taking money to put in social programs, then it IS making decisions, and propping up some businesses but not others. It may be more indirect than a pure command economy though. Although your description of capitalism is messed up anyways. The fact that you put owners in scare quotes pretty much gives the game away. Believe it or not, it is possible to own something without being government backed. That's pretty much a basic tenets of free markets and capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the answer, had you actually chose to actually listen to bushes statements was that 9/11 caused a change in policy away from tolerating or ignoring terrorist sponsoring nations and towards overt military action against such nations, and was not tied to Al Qaeda specifically. Although not a sponsor of Al Qaeda, Iraq did sponsor terrorism by rewarding the families of palestinian suicide bombers and harboring abu-nidal, among others. Popular opinion got him to come to congress for a specific resolution about Iraq, although he originally thought the GWoT covered it.
Not true really. Leading up to the war, a majority supported the use of military force.
What safewords do you use with bondage and discipline languages?
Sorry, that was horrible.
How about "Right = Economic growth is the best method to improve quality of life in the long run"? I don't think you will fine any right-winger who will go along with 'no matter the cost'.
Yep, and you and the rest of society are free to not pay for my care in those circumstances. That doesn't give you a right to punish me for doing it. For the sake of clarity, by punish, I mean causing me harm in some fashion.
No, you won't find it because it's not a good idea. You are far more likely to find businesses that only accept credit cards.
"And why should we assume that Joe Public can understand science?" Because hiding real science from Joe Public guarantees that he will never learn to understand it. The public may be confused by complicated facts and statistics, but sugar coating and hiding those facts just reinforces their flawed understanding of the world around them.
It's amusing that you think government intervention would make a free market. By defintion, if the government uses force to control what happens, it's a constrained market, not free. You may not feel that the current, less constrained, market isn't producing the result you personally would prefer... but that's one of the things about markets with multitudes of individuals, someone is generally going to be unsatisfied.
Given your reference to XKCD, I must link his take on the LHC. It seems more likely than the doomsday scenarios.
My god, it's full of e's...
Here's one of the things that have been explicitly measured. The number of people admitted to hospitals does not correlate with full moons, but nonetheless numerous nurses and physicans think it does. (the link is just one example, there are others) If the actual measured numbers do not match peoples memories, that's evidence of faulty memories. People are subject to all sorts of bias effects when trying to interpret and detect correlations. Effectively, there's no particular reason to believe that long existing common knowledge is actually correct without evidence, given how easy it is for people to fall into those sorts of traps. It's not patronizing or idiotic to point out that everyone's perceptions are capable of being fooled. Denying that possibility is far more foolish.
Well, I need to at least partially withdraw my argument. Here is at least one post critiquing the city journal article, along with the preceding blog post.. Having the actual questions posted, I have to agree that except possibly for the alcohol question, this particular study wasn't nearly as suspect as presented. However, the alcohol questions are pretty big, since "I got drunk and changed my mind" is vastly different from "I got drunk and passed out". I also don't see where Koss claimed 1 in 4... but it could be that the city journal article referred to a different survey by Koss.
The 1in4 statistic has been around quite a bit longer. According to CityJournal, it was originally generated by determining a set of behaviours which qualified as rape, asking women about what they dealt with, and then reported it even though the vast majority denied that they had been raped. Much like the re-definition of racism so that underpriviliged minorities can't be racist, this is little more than academic fraud.
I can't quickly find the studies you are referring to. I strongly suspect that they used the same flawed methodology and redefinition, rather than point blank asking if they had been the victim of rape or attempted rape.
I don't mind the side of caution. I object to making a full meal of it...
Bullshit. In my local area, we had LOTS of restaurants which were entirely non-smoking. You did have a choice. It may be that for some specific types of restaurants (i.e. bars) there weren't no smoking version. That just means there wasn't enough demand. It's no more the governments job to guarantee smoke free bars than it is to guarantee a supply of your favorite brand of cereal.
I'm just going to direct you to a message which already challenged this particular claim. Although it looks like it was posted at the same time more or less.
I second c6gunner's comments. :) I apologize for being a bit snarky. And I thank you for not taking me to task for misspelling Exoon. I swear I hit prieview...
Incidentally, this is why I like message boards sometimes. People will post up their sources for you. I now feel compelled to back up that 10%. Keeping 9.41 out of 102.3 billion just doesn't seem wrong to me.
I'm not following your logic here. Apparently it runs as follows:
1. The war in iraq is expensive.
2. A Rxxon is making a bunch of money. (Although it's only about 10% of gross sales, which is a bit LOW for most companies)
3. Iraq is succesfully producing oil, and several companines including exxon want in on it.
4. No really, exxon is looking to expand in Iraq.
Therefore, the entire war to date has been for the benefit of exxon.
Really, how does that follow? They haven't yet begun operating in iraq, they dont' currently buy oil from iraq, but somehow the war has been a major source of profit for them? Please show a shred of evidence that the war has caused them to become more profitable, as opposed to increased demand and other suppliers.
Die Bart Die
Ok, "goverment is taking money to put in social programs" fits your definition of socialism. As I indicated, that demands command economic decisions as well. In other words, they are tied to each other, and are therefor not orthogonal. In math terms, the dot product of 2 non-zero values along both scales is also non-zero.
I'll grant you that land as property is government based. I have no problem with this. I still claim ownership of anything I produce using that land. If I have ownership of myself, then I own my own labor. If I own my labor, then I own products of that labor. If you prefer, if I don't own the products of my labor, then I don't in truth own my labor itself, and thus I don't own myself. The labor theory of value is bull, but the labor theory of ownership is much more robust.
Another way to look at it, homesteading at various times was protected by government action. That doesn't mean the right to live and use land didn't exist without the government protection, much like the right to speak freely exists even without government efforts to protect that right.
You say you do similar work to your dad. What precisely do you do? Other people have made guesses about your spending habits and tech. I'm guessing that you get paid less than your dad correcting for inflation for one reason or another. It may be that your job is in less demand, which would intuitively indicate you will be doing worse than your parents did doing the same thing. That doesn't mean that people on the whole aren't better off than their parents, you may be an anecdotal exception to the rule.
Actually, the States decide how their electors are chosen. It's not the constitutions fault that it's plurality with Winner-takes-all.
Yes, I would. Forcing congress to get a 2/3 majority for everything would be beneficial in the long run, as you wouldn't be able to get away with party-line voting.
There's a reason it was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not "Operation Iraqi Disarmament". The idea was there from the get go as one of many factors in the decision to invade. We also had all the violations, which were all mentioned in the runup, as well as WMD programs, which he really was trying to keep in place. Despite all the hand wringing about yellowcake from Niger, it's important to note that Wilson was told that Iraq had in fact sought to acquire some. They had been rebuffed, but they had made the effort.
That being said said, the GP ost was flawed. I can't say that he personally didn't hear these predictions, but the ones that everyone heard were predictions of millions (note the plural) of deaths and refugees, and extended periods of major combat, NOT predictions of an long lasting insurgency after we took out the existing government and instituted a relatively democratic replacement.
They aren't orthogonal. If the goverment is taking money to put in social programs, then it IS making decisions, and propping up some businesses but not others. It may be more indirect than a pure command economy though. Although your description of capitalism is messed up anyways. The fact that you put owners in scare quotes pretty much gives the game away. Believe it or not, it is possible to own something without being government backed. That's pretty much a basic tenets of free markets and capitalism.