kelpdiver

That was only San Francisco and it was easily dodged.

he appeared to be in England when the warrant was filed. The Ecuador gambit is a funny one - dramatically limits the outcome set.

like the voting spree that elected Hitler?!

so how do you propose that we measure their performance? They're not public companies, so there's no stock index or benchmark around them. However, since they are direct customers of the ones that are in the S&P or the Russell 3000, there is considerable correlation between them, just as you see with the two indexes. Odds are high that if you give an alternate benchmark, Kallend is going to show the same patterns he's already shown. Though again I'd point all to my posting comparing Reagan's second term to Clinton's 2nd, and what happened to the next guy.

so far the proposals are only attacking soda under the wider umbrella of sugary drinks. This is really about the kids, who aren't (generally) drinking beer. But if you look at what happens whenever a beer tax is proposed and how quickly the legislators retreat, I don't think we need to worry any time soon. Cambridge is already attacking the obvious 'flaw' in the NYC proposal - people will just go back for more. But a ban on free refills is easily sidetracked. SF banned toys in happy meals, so they sell them for a penny. Chicago bans the sale of foie gras, so the restaurant gives it away with a $20 toast purchase. If the proponents actually lock down the language, then they lost their ability to say 'it's no big deal, you can do X' lines that enable them to get in the first step.

What books are you referring to? I haven't heard Clinton or Nixon talk about the corrupt White House. But as for your question - it's a lot easier to look back and see it for what it was. It's a bit different when you're in the midst of it, just trying to keep up with the duties of the office. Look at Obama and all the promises he made before winning the election. I don't believe he was lying/campaigning then - I think he really believed he could just walk in and do these things. That's what you get when you combine intelligence with no experience. When faces with the full picture, suddenly many of Bush's stances didn't seem so wrong. One could claim that's being captured by the system, but I'll just say that the real world is a bit complicated.

that's pretty much what Andy said.

Bush was of above average intelligence, but he's bracketed by two guys of superior intelligence, as well as his father, who sported the most impressive background of any President of the past 50 years. He also did not help matters when he chose to deliberately dumb down his conversation to appeal to the commoners, particularly pandering to those who distrust intelligence.

he was quite willing to talk with the Swedes - just not while in their custody. With the way the charges have been made, and the ridiculousness of calling these events rape or sexual assault, any reasonable person would see the danger.

Are you sure you have a point anymore? To recap, you suggested as federal policy that humanities majors should not be eligible for subsidized student loans because they would at best make 40k, while engineering majors would make 150% more (100k). But reality is that it's 80k versus 100k, and anyone with a minimal understanding of distribution would see that there would be numerous cases of those liberal arts majors outearning their engineering counterparts. Thus making your proposal unsupportable. I've been trying to get you to further elaborate based on those data points, but you'd rather talk about demeanor. I can't imagine why. Tell you what - since this thread has long bored everyone else, I'll let you have the last asinine word. Enjoy!

as typical for both of you, a lot of distortion of reality. The economy of Reagan's second term was much like the economy of Clinton's second term. And in both cases, the fun ride came to a stop in the subsequent term. 2000 was going to happen if Gore won. 9/11 was going to happen as well. So the dotcom bust recession at the beginning of the 2000s was inevitable. Now had Shrub not bloated the government with the DSA growth and 2 extended wars, the end of his time could have been markedly different. Very hard to tell. It's likely the Feds still would have had a loose money supply, the key feeder of the real estate bubble.

seems also like it may be even harder to differentiate drug runners from civilians (like would be border crossers). Could end up with the same carnage Berlin had in the no man's land between the Walls. Using them for surveillance with the ok from the Mexicans is not so dicey.

To quote you... "call it a rounding error" too bad for you a rounding error doesn't encompass a claim of a 150% differential when the reality in fact was 25%. That's being off by a factor of 6. I think Kallend remarked accurately on the math skills being demonstrated. I hope you'll avoid such bad math when trying to defend our gun rights.

and you're free to explain post #48. I know you'd love to pretend you didn't say those words, but you did. So either you're being dishonest on this topic or you're really really bad at math, and either way you shouldn't be setting spending policy.

my posting record is pretty clear on the subject of voter ID laws, disproves your statement. Your latest citation is better than the unfortunate one from the last day. But it borders on being advocacy by the authors who did their own review of ~200 cases. Their idea of "questionable cases" is rather questionable, and that didn't change when I got past their one liner descriptions and looked at the detail. Are there cases of "poor" implementation of this law? I'm sure. Every time the DA makes a decision about how to prosecute a capital case there is a lot of dissent. In CA the SF DA refused to seek the death penalty in all cases, included those involving LEO deaths. But to conclude this means the law is bad is a reach. Weigh the good and the bad...and that every defense attorney tries to use it is not part of the bad. (that's their job).

post 2218 is the only article that actually described events. They did not describe innocent people, yet you asserted otherwise. Now you're just be evasive about it, saying something about other instances. But the other citation doesn't talk about incidents, but rather some reporter's summary analysis of incidents. how about pointing to a tangible example, rather than hide in the land of vagueness?

Not just one example, an article that pointed out 157 examples. That unrelated article summarized its analysis of 157 cases, but left it to you to accept at faith. Since the results match your preconceived opinion, that was fine. But now that you're actually listing some detail of specific circumstances, the facts are working against you. I have little ssue with these two applications of SYG. He was not actively dealing drugs during the time of the first incident and he was stalked and attacked in the second by someone who wanted revenge (ie, premeditated murder) for the first.

OK, so no indoor pools in Australia? more about avoiding the shock of shifting from cold to warm client. 6 weeks is excessive and the winter in a place like SYD is not that different than here, but I know that I can be affected just by daily variations in San Francisco. avoiding a 20+ hour flight in the near term before a match is also obvious. but pre olympic meets is the obvious explanation. AUS isn't big enough to have a deeply competitive trials like the US can. They're better off selecting their team a bit earlier and having them compete against other swimmers instead as their tune up.

But I'm sure it would be inappropriate for the shooting team to post pictures of themselves swimming. shows too much skin.

The informed ones dont or they just choose to ignore. I do that all the time for nonsense, unclear, or most posts that start with a url and no explanation. presumably you and everyone else posts in order to initiate a conversation. Bit self defeating if you don't even identify the subject.

it's a shame we can't devaccinate the Taliban leadership against polio. And then send in the blankets!

Early on the Occupy folks actually tried to encourage an action of substance - ditching the BofA/Wells/Citi/Chase accounts and going to local banks and credit unions. It'sa shame they had such poor follow thru (and that Occupy Oakland got caught using WellsFargo). It's voting with your wallet.

Which is it? Nothing to do with it, or now just a little bit? call it a rounding error. Trying to call it the or a primary cause is political spinsterism.

Post 48: "Yep, and engineer will make 100k+, A Liberal arts major 30-40k *maybe* in most cases." Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

I did not pick it. The Tampa Tribune did. I just copied it. Along with the other Tampa article a few weeks ago about the couple hundred incidents that have fallen under SYG. the law is faulty, it is misapplied, it is misinterpreted. As a result, innocent people are dead, guilty people are walking free, and many many cases have different results for given the same circumstances. Again, YOUR example of 'innocent' people were two guys that were trying to commit murder. There's no question on this. If those are the best examples you and the Tribune can find, then SYG isn't doing a bad job for the state of Florida.