That sucks. I guess you also don't have Pandora then. This must be a totally different internet experience; since Netflix and Pandora I haven't bothered with P2P, dvds and mp3 collections.
Your gut instinct is basically telling you what lobbying is. And it's not very difficult to follow the money because in most countries lobbyists have to put their name and purpose in a public register before they meet with elected officials to offer them money in exchange for their support on various topics.
The real solution is Netflix. By the time new movies show up on Netflix the hype is already gone and everybody know they aren't worth watching, so instead you can spend time watching uninteresting documentaries about the price of water in Detroit or terrible British series.
The fun part with Netflix is the rating system. I keep putting 1 Star ("hated it") to everything I watch because the recommendations are always bad anyways and this allows me to feel like one of those people in House Hunters who are never happy with the houses that their real estate person is trying to sell them.
Which gives me an idea: if Netflix had all the content from HGTV and Food Network it would be awesome. I would spend entire days watching Holmes on Homes or episodes of the fat dude who travels around the country in his convertible to try greasy spoon joints. Who cares if it's all old reruns, as long as there is no commercials it's still better than the endless crotch jokes in Movie 43.
I don't know who wrote this bot, but the fact that it is adapting its babbling to recent events (like beta) shows that it is evolving, and this is a breakthrough in the area of Artificial Stupidity.
I don't think you understand the context so here are the Gallup numbers as of 2012 (for the USA): -46% of people believe in creationism -32% of people believe in intelligent design -15% of people believe in evolution not involving God at all
Yes: 3x more creationists than evolutionists, and 4x more people who believe God is involved than people who don't believe in God (or think he was not involved).
So while you won't hear that in the big time liberal press (especially pro-commie and pro-feminist garbage like motherjones), creationists are not a bunch of isolated morons somewhere in the bible belt, they represent a vast majority of the US population which explains why in some areas elected officials decide to challenge the evolutionist propaganda that's been forced down their throat in the school system for decades. And such propaganda has little results, as the proportion of creationists is actually increasing (+6% over the last 30 years).
But if you really need an answer to your question, here it is: the reason why creationists don't pool their money in oil ventures on the basis that the Flood theory should allow them to make better predictions as to where oil can be found (says you) is the same reason why evolutionists don't pool their money in oil ventures on the basis that as the 15% minority with science on their side (allegedly) they should be able to find oil more easily than those stupid religious people. And that reason is that the link between finding oil and believing in a specific theory about the origin of mankind exists only in your mind.
And I would conclude that invoking Poe's law is offensive because it leaves no room for the idea that the other person is not making extremist statements. Also the Poe's law itself is a shame as some unknown idiot is using the name of a famous writer to boost the credibility of his insulting adage. Who the fuck is Nathan Poe and why does his lousy statement deserve a wikipedia entry? Another instance of the liberal and evolutionist bias of the wikipedia clique.
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth?
Did you even read the articles you linked, or did you just google random keywords and copy the links in your post, expecting that nobody would ever challenge your pseudo-scientific babbling?
The origin of oil is clearly explained (your link: http://www.answersingenesis.or...): "Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits"
This makes more sense than your foolish theory of oil being plankton or dead dinosaurs rotting for millions of years. I know that evolutionists start with their dogma and then work backwards to conveniently adapt "facts" by coming up with unprovable claims backed by hack science, but even the most fervent darwinist must be able to se that this dinosaur/oil thing is pretty ridiculous. How can it be that some dinosaurs became oil but at the same time people keep finding dinosaur bones in their backyards?
Your emperor (Darwin) has no clothes. You can keep pretending so the other nerds will not ignore your handle on the old fart ham radio network but in the dead of night, when you are alone in the basement playing with your radio shack breadboard, you must have this gnawing feeling that there is more to life than what your mind can comprehend. Just like the rational husband in those haunted house movies who is always the last to acknowledge that "some kind of magnetic interference" does not truly explain how silverware got perfectly piled up in the middle of the living room or how blood can ooze from the disconnected tv.
Just imagine what could be done if all of that manpower could be used towards doing useful work instead.
Just imagine what could be done if all the manpower in Silicon Valley could be used towards doing useful work instead of creating clones of flappy birds and iPhone fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18RuLED2nQM).
If you look carefully at Obama's birth certificate (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf) you will see that he comes from an area that is closer to Pyongyang than Washington DC. How that obvious North Korean spy got to be the leader of the free world is a mystery.
The only issue I see is that you use too much italic and it makes you look like a wuss.
Also I tried to read the articles you linked, but for the most part they suck. Like the one about geology, basically the author keeps saying "creationists argue this" or "creationists argue that" to frame his flood of boring information then accuse those evil creationists of setting up a straw man. That's a bit rich because that's exactly what he is doing.
Also in the one about oil, the author states that "all the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the biblical account of earth history". The dude holds a Ph.d. in geology but I guess you provided that article to make it clear that people with a Ph.d. are competent only if they agree with your specific vision of the world.
It's ok to cherish your notions about evolution but even if you feel that facts are on your side, you actually provided nothing except your opinion (and demented typography) to prove that.
Your talking about Relativism, which I happen to agree with. However, your naivety shows based on your opinion that "this is about the origin of mankind". No it is not. Make no mistake young man, this is about religious zealotry. History is clear on this matter. Allow religion into your politics (or school system) and today it is "teach the controversy" and tomorrow it's "death to all non believers". If you don't believe me, just look at any country throughout history where religion (any religion based on the old testament) played a major role in society. Scary stuff.
It's easy to say that other people are zealots when they have a different persective on life. It applies to politics too - what is the Vietnam war, the Korean war and the Iraq invasion if not "death to all non believers"? Because democracy is the one true system? Guess what, communists and islamic terrorists also believe they know what is the one true system.
It's ok to take side, that does not mean people who take the other side are idiots.
While I think your contention that "Very rarely do students actually learn critical thinking skills" in public schools has legs, I'm not sure I would lay that entirely at the doorstep of the science classes / teachers. US school seems to consist largely of the process of learning facts to be regurgitated on a test, then learning more facts before being tested again. There's just not much room for critical thinking in the curriculum.
This is what you get when you use standardized tests and base school funding on the results to those tests. There is a pretty good quote on this in The Wire: "You don't teach math, you teach the test". (if you haven't see that series, wach this entire clip about education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...)
What makes this scary is if someone slips mysticism (bad information) in with the facts we end up teaching lies to our children.
Bad information has been taught in school since school was invented - and not only because of religion. It was not religious people who came up with the flat earth theory, it was scientific people (the religious believed earth was standing on a turtle or something) and generations of captains took to the sea based on that information. Being wrong is a constant possibility in science as knowledge and tools evolve.
The danger is in becoming dogmatic; this always was a pattern with religious people, but this is also becoming typical in the scientific community as raising even the smallest issue with some pillars of the modern thinking such as the theory of evolution leads to ostracism and suspicion of a pro-religious agenda.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
The issue is not about evolution, it's about the origin of mankind. That's a distinction that many people on the scientific side of the debate are not seeing clearly.
The fact that some people don't see evolution as an answer to the origin of mankind can be more easily understood when looking at a similar debate: when does a foetus become a person... at conception? after 16 weeks? when there is brain activity? when the foetus can survive outside the womb? People disagree on this (even in the scientific community), yet even the most hardcore christians don't dispute the fact that if things follow their natural course, the foetus is likely to become a baby then a kid and eventually an adult.
That's like arguing over when exactly water goes from "cold" to "hot", and is there something in between or not. Throwing in Celsiuses and Fahrenheits and Kelvins or liquid versus solid does not make it more true than people saying that it's "whenever I perceive it as such".
Bottom line, people should accept the complexity of life and not get their panties in a buch over the limitations of boolean classifications regarding what is right or wrong. If a bunch of parents want their kids to be taught both creationism and evolution (or neither), that's their choice, and people who are in need of a specific truth can go find it later in life by pursuing a scientific education at Stanford or spiritual education with the Jesuits or the Dalai Lama.
People who fear that students not exposed to the theory of evolution in middle or high school will end up being clueless religious zealots are like people who are afraid that children raised by same-sex parents will become gay themselves. Get real.
When a bricklayer who is an EMPLOYEE builds the wall, even if it's defective, he fixes it on the company's time. If he's a contractor, then yes, he fixes it (depending on the contract) on his own time.
The wall builder analogy is flawed. The only wall builders who will actually fix things on their own time are those who entered in a "turn-key" agreement, which is typically a lot more expensive than an hourly rate because the client is buying results, not labor. Usually those wall builders are very careful about what is covered and they end up charging a fortune for extras. Ask any company who outsourced anything to IBM.
I gave a shot at your youtube link and I have to say, I would rather try to return a laser printer without a receipt at Best Buy in the days following Black Friday than watch one more minute of that horrible sitcom. It makes Three's Company look like a complex plot-driven drama starring top models...
Also: why did they hire trannies to play female characters? Must be a British thing.
You don't read the right kind of websites. The reason why the coke business is thriving is that it has the blessing of the Secret Government who has agents in South America injecting a DNA marker in the raw product so drug users can be detected and prevented from joining the Secret Government. This strategy was inspired by the bomb-sniffing dogs who actually can't detect bombs but rather are sensitive to a specific compound injected in the explosives for the purpose of detection.
As for designer drugs (aka the generics of the illegal drug trade): they are a shameful byproduct of greed and are standing in the way of chemical innovation by depriving mainstream drug labs from a large proportion of the revenue they should get. Like the Goophone.
I never said anything about Obama. You seem to be fixated, do you have a crush on him?
Nah it's just that I watched "Mitt" on Netflix. Now I'm a raging republican and pro-mormon. HASHTAG ROMNEY 2016
I don't think the party usually runs someone again after a failed attempt, do they?
What about Richard Nixon? Maybe not the best President but unlike Clinton he opted to walk away instead of lying to the Congress about something he did.
10 calendar days per year less than the national average.
How is that done? That seems a lot of if its all in one place, but if its a single extra day off for whatever reason each month, its not going to make much difference.
By the time they get to college, this "tiny difference" adds up to more than one semester. And that's just the difference in calendar days. 3 more semesters are lost because of the shorter days.
How many adults mentally clock out an hour before they go home? "Present" isn't necessarily "productive".
This applies to everyone, including people from Chicago. If you consider that people "clock out" an hour early, then Chicago students (and teachers) also do, so the gap remains the same.
If you look at individual hours or days and lose track of the big picture, of course everything is meaningless. If your coworker makes 20k$ more than you a year, you can discard that because it's a mere 0.13$ in his pockets every minute... who cares about 0.13$? But it adds up to 800k$ over his entire career. That's enough money to send all the grandkids to Harvard without them having to eat tv dinners or drive old Hondas to a part-time job at Olive Garden.
I can't believe I'm the first one to reply that Correlation != causation.
What about: include the name of Obama in a comment without singing his praises and get modded down. Is that a case of "Correlation != causation"? Because that sure happens a lot.
All he did was destroy small business with his fiscal and healthcare lunacy, damage the economy even further than Bush managed to, spy on US citizens and destroy business opportunities abroad for IT companies by making allies and foes worried about NSA backdoors. Why do you people keep defending him.
I was horrified to see that the country was very close to get Sarah Palin as a VP and I believe that just by choosing her McCain did not deserve to be President. But now seeing the extent of damage done by Obama I wonder how worse it could have been.
Slashdot Mirror
#insuling
Gotcha, you're a dude. Girls never use "btw": they use "fyi" with a whiny, self-righteous sarcastic undertone.
Thinking of that, this applies to flamboyant gay males as well.
So you are either an overweight straight guy in his early 30s or a Perl script written by an overweight straight guy in his early 30s.
That sucks. I guess you also don't have Pandora then. This must be a totally different internet experience; since Netflix and Pandora I haven't bothered with P2P, dvds and mp3 collections.
Your gut instinct is basically telling you what lobbying is. And it's not very difficult to follow the money because in most countries lobbyists have to put their name and purpose in a public register before they meet with elected officials to offer them money in exchange for their support on various topics.
The real solution is Netflix. By the time new movies show up on Netflix the hype is already gone and everybody know they aren't worth watching, so instead you can spend time watching uninteresting documentaries about the price of water in Detroit or terrible British series.
The fun part with Netflix is the rating system. I keep putting 1 Star ("hated it") to everything I watch because the recommendations are always bad anyways and this allows me to feel like one of those people in House Hunters who are never happy with the houses that their real estate person is trying to sell them.
Which gives me an idea: if Netflix had all the content from HGTV and Food Network it would be awesome. I would spend entire days watching Holmes on Homes or episodes of the fat dude who travels around the country in his convertible to try greasy spoon joints. Who cares if it's all old reruns, as long as there is no commercials it's still better than the endless crotch jokes in Movie 43.
I don't know who wrote this bot, but the fact that it is adapting its babbling to recent events (like beta) shows that it is evolving, and this is a breakthrough in the area of Artificial Stupidity.
I don't think you understand the context so here are the Gallup numbers as of 2012 (for the USA):
-46% of people believe in creationism
-32% of people believe in intelligent design
-15% of people believe in evolution not involving God at all
Yes: 3x more creationists than evolutionists, and 4x more people who believe God is involved than people who don't believe in God (or think he was not involved).
So while you won't hear that in the big time liberal press (especially pro-commie and pro-feminist garbage like motherjones), creationists are not a bunch of isolated morons somewhere in the bible belt, they represent a vast majority of the US population which explains why in some areas elected officials decide to challenge the evolutionist propaganda that's been forced down their throat in the school system for decades. And such propaganda has little results, as the proportion of creationists is actually increasing (+6% over the last 30 years).
But if you really need an answer to your question, here it is: the reason why creationists don't pool their money in oil ventures on the basis that the Flood theory should allow them to make better predictions as to where oil can be found (says you) is the same reason why evolutionists don't pool their money in oil ventures on the basis that as the 15% minority with science on their side (allegedly) they should be able to find oil more easily than those stupid religious people. And that reason is that the link between finding oil and believing in a specific theory about the origin of mankind exists only in your mind.
And I would conclude that invoking Poe's law is offensive because it leaves no room for the idea that the other person is not making extremist statements. Also the Poe's law itself is a shame as some unknown idiot is using the name of a famous writer to boost the credibility of his insulting adage. Who the fuck is Nathan Poe and why does his lousy statement deserve a wikipedia entry? Another instance of the liberal and evolutionist bias of the wikipedia clique.
What is the point of reading the article when other people can do it instead and answer questions for stuff that is not obvious in the summary?
You must be one of the 53%.
What about DWR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Or ST-JS? http://st-js.github.io/
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth?
Did you even read the articles you linked, or did you just google random keywords and copy the links in your post, expecting that nobody would ever challenge your pseudo-scientific babbling?
The origin of oil is clearly explained (your link: http://www.answersingenesis.or...):
"Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits"
This makes more sense than your foolish theory of oil being plankton or dead dinosaurs rotting for millions of years. I know that evolutionists start with their dogma and then work backwards to conveniently adapt "facts" by coming up with unprovable claims backed by hack science, but even the most fervent darwinist must be able to se that this dinosaur/oil thing is pretty ridiculous. How can it be that some dinosaurs became oil but at the same time people keep finding dinosaur bones in their backyards?
Your emperor (Darwin) has no clothes. You can keep pretending so the other nerds will not ignore your handle on the old fart ham radio network but in the dead of night, when you are alone in the basement playing with your radio shack breadboard, you must have this gnawing feeling that there is more to life than what your mind can comprehend. Just like the rational husband in those haunted house movies who is always the last to acknowledge that "some kind of magnetic interference" does not truly explain how silverware got perfectly piled up in the middle of the living room or how blood can ooze from the disconnected tv.
Just imagine what could be done if all of that manpower could be used towards doing useful work instead.
Just imagine what could be done if all the manpower in Silicon Valley could be used towards doing useful work instead of creating clones of flappy birds and iPhone fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18RuLED2nQM).
If you look carefully at Obama's birth certificate (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf) you will see that he comes from an area that is closer to Pyongyang than Washington DC. How that obvious North Korean spy got to be the leader of the free world is a mystery.
That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
The only issue I see is that you use too much italic and it makes you look like a wuss.
Also I tried to read the articles you linked, but for the most part they suck. Like the one about geology, basically the author keeps saying "creationists argue this" or "creationists argue that" to frame his flood of boring information then accuse those evil creationists of setting up a straw man. That's a bit rich because that's exactly what he is doing.
Also in the one about oil, the author states that "all the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the biblical account of earth history". The dude holds a Ph.d. in geology but I guess you provided that article to make it clear that people with a Ph.d. are competent only if they agree with your specific vision of the world.
It's ok to cherish your notions about evolution but even if you feel that facts are on your side, you actually provided nothing except your opinion (and demented typography) to prove that.
Your talking about Relativism, which I happen to agree with. However, your naivety shows based on your opinion that "this is about the origin of mankind". No it is not. Make no mistake young man, this is about religious zealotry. History is clear on this matter. Allow religion into your politics (or school system) and today it is "teach the controversy" and tomorrow it's "death to all non believers". If you don't believe me, just look at any country throughout history where religion (any religion based on the old testament) played a major role in society. Scary stuff.
It's easy to say that other people are zealots when they have a different persective on life. It applies to politics too - what is the Vietnam war, the Korean war and the Iraq invasion if not "death to all non believers"? Because democracy is the one true system? Guess what, communists and islamic terrorists also believe they know what is the one true system.
It's ok to take side, that does not mean people who take the other side are idiots.
While I think your contention that "Very rarely do students actually learn critical thinking skills" in public schools has legs, I'm not sure I would lay that entirely at the doorstep of the science classes / teachers. US school seems to consist largely of the process of learning facts to be regurgitated on a test, then learning more facts before being tested again. There's just not much room for critical thinking in the curriculum.
This is what you get when you use standardized tests and base school funding on the results to those tests. There is a pretty good quote on this in The Wire: "You don't teach math, you teach the test". (if you haven't see that series, wach this entire clip about education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...)
What makes this scary is if someone slips mysticism (bad information) in with the facts we end up teaching lies to our children.
Bad information has been taught in school since school was invented - and not only because of religion. It was not religious people who came up with the flat earth theory, it was scientific people (the religious believed earth was standing on a turtle or something) and generations of captains took to the sea based on that information. Being wrong is a constant possibility in science as knowledge and tools evolve.
The danger is in becoming dogmatic; this always was a pattern with religious people, but this is also becoming typical in the scientific community as raising even the smallest issue with some pillars of the modern thinking such as the theory of evolution leads to ostracism and suspicion of a pro-religious agenda.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
The issue is not about evolution, it's about the origin of mankind. That's a distinction that many people on the scientific side of the debate are not seeing clearly.
The fact that some people don't see evolution as an answer to the origin of mankind can be more easily understood when looking at a similar debate: when does a foetus become a person... at conception? after 16 weeks? when there is brain activity? when the foetus can survive outside the womb? People disagree on this (even in the scientific community), yet even the most hardcore christians don't dispute the fact that if things follow their natural course, the foetus is likely to become a baby then a kid and eventually an adult.
That's like arguing over when exactly water goes from "cold" to "hot", and is there something in between or not. Throwing in Celsiuses and Fahrenheits and Kelvins or liquid versus solid does not make it more true than people saying that it's "whenever I perceive it as such".
Bottom line, people should accept the complexity of life and not get their panties in a buch over the limitations of boolean classifications regarding what is right or wrong. If a bunch of parents want their kids to be taught both creationism and evolution (or neither), that's their choice, and people who are in need of a specific truth can go find it later in life by pursuing a scientific education at Stanford or spiritual education with the Jesuits or the Dalai Lama.
People who fear that students not exposed to the theory of evolution in middle or high school will end up being clueless religious zealots are like people who are afraid that children raised by same-sex parents will become gay themselves. Get real.
When a bricklayer who is an EMPLOYEE builds the wall, even if it's defective, he fixes it on the company's time. If he's a contractor, then yes, he fixes it (depending on the contract) on his own time.
The wall builder analogy is flawed. The only wall builders who will actually fix things on their own time are those who entered in a "turn-key" agreement, which is typically a lot more expensive than an hourly rate because the client is buying results, not labor. Usually those wall builders are very careful about what is covered and they end up charging a fortune for extras. Ask any company who outsourced anything to IBM.
I gave a shot at your youtube link and I have to say, I would rather try to return a laser printer without a receipt at Best Buy in the days following Black Friday than watch one more minute of that horrible sitcom. It makes Three's Company look like a complex plot-driven drama starring top models...
Also: why did they hire trannies to play female characters? Must be a British thing.
It could not have been Timothy, he was with your mom at the time of the down-modding.
> They do not understand that we are their contributors, their community, not their audience. Their articles are day-late dollar-short shit.
So basically *our* articles are day-late dollar-short shit. SHAME ON US!
On an unrelated matter: beta has no "quote" button but has a "share" button. Brave new world.
You don't read the right kind of websites. The reason why the coke business is thriving is that it has the blessing of the Secret Government who has agents in South America injecting a DNA marker in the raw product so drug users can be detected and prevented from joining the Secret Government. This strategy was inspired by the bomb-sniffing dogs who actually can't detect bombs but rather are sensitive to a specific compound injected in the explosives for the purpose of detection.
As for designer drugs (aka the generics of the illegal drug trade): they are a shameful byproduct of greed and are standing in the way of chemical innovation by depriving mainstream drug labs from a large proportion of the revenue they should get. Like the Goophone.
I never said anything about Obama. You seem to be fixated, do you have a crush on him?
Nah it's just that I watched "Mitt" on Netflix. Now I'm a raging republican and pro-mormon. HASHTAG ROMNEY 2016
I don't think the party usually runs someone again after a failed attempt, do they?
What about Richard Nixon? Maybe not the best President but unlike Clinton he opted to walk away instead of lying to the Congress about something he did.
10 calendar days per year less than the national average.
How is that done? That seems a lot of if its all in one place, but if its a single extra day off for whatever reason each month, its not going to make much difference.
By the time they get to college, this "tiny difference" adds up to more than one semester. And that's just the difference in calendar days. 3 more semesters are lost because of the shorter days.
How many adults mentally clock out an hour before they go home? "Present" isn't necessarily "productive".
This applies to everyone, including people from Chicago. If you consider that people "clock out" an hour early, then Chicago students (and teachers) also do, so the gap remains the same.
If you look at individual hours or days and lose track of the big picture, of course everything is meaningless. If your coworker makes 20k$ more than you a year, you can discard that because it's a mere 0.13$ in his pockets every minute... who cares about 0.13$? But it adds up to 800k$ over his entire career. That's enough money to send all the grandkids to Harvard without them having to eat tv dinners or drive old Hondas to a part-time job at Olive Garden.
I never said anything about Obama. You seem to be fixated, do you have a crush on him?
Nah it's just that I watched "Mitt" on Netflix. Now I'm a raging republican and pro-mormon. HASHTAG ROMNEY 2016
I can't believe I'm the first one to reply that Correlation != causation.
What about: include the name of Obama in a comment without singing his praises and get modded down. Is that a case of "Correlation != causation"? Because that sure happens a lot.
All he did was destroy small business with his fiscal and healthcare lunacy, damage the economy even further than Bush managed to, spy on US citizens and destroy business opportunities abroad for IT companies by making allies and foes worried about NSA backdoors. Why do you people keep defending him.
I was horrified to see that the country was very close to get Sarah Palin as a VP and I believe that just by choosing her McCain did not deserve to be President. But now seeing the extent of damage done by Obama I wonder how worse it could have been.