carmenc

Yes, that is the image they try to paint. Some of us just don't buy it. Some of us don't want a "regular guy" holding the office of President of the United States. We had that and it proved to be a very expensive mistake. Bush just pretended to be a regular guy. He was born into, and lived in privilege.

filling loopholes, public pressure and shame, perhaps taxation, nationalization, and even hanging or crucification may be justified. What is absolutely not justified is that this has become a more than week long full-time occupation of every media pundit, elected official, and joe blow wannabe in the country. With all the large numbers flying around I like to count things in household dollars. There are roughly 100 million households in the US, so count one hh$ as 100,000,000 real $'s. So a $800 Bio stimulus plan translates into $8,000 for each hh A $170 Bio AIG bailout becomes $1,700 for each hh and the $180 Mio bonus money translate per hh to ........ one dollar and 80 cents. Sure, if you buy some piece of equipment for $1700 or $8000 and the vendor puts some nonsense fee of $1.80 on your bill you may reasonably tell him this is bullsh**t and he should never do that again. But throwing a hysterical hissy-fit for an entire week over the $1.80 instead of getting on with your life and worrying what to do with your $8000 equipment is bordering on the mentally ill. Here a more sophisticated point of view than I can offer. Cheers, T That's a bit like saying we shouldn't expend any effort to catch a murderer, because there are 299,999,999 people left.

Saying "let them have the bonuses because it's a drop in the bucket" SERIOUSLY misses the point, IMO. These represent the very people whose greed has halved the retirement savings of millions, and they're paying themselves bonuses that average 6 times the annual income of the typical US worker, out of taxpayer supplied dollars.

It is not an unlikely scenario that the whole financial system would have collapsed. Not just a bank here or there. Secondly, capitalism created this mess, why would you think that capitalism would also fix it? Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.

I take it, then, that you ignore all FDA regulations and all epidemiological information coming from the CDC. Then you would be making incorrect assumption. A does not equal B here. But, you can read into it what ever you want. What I read into it is inconsistency.

Are you claiming that the FACT that raising the minimum wage in Florida did not increase unemployment (contrary to the predictions of the right) is somehow not objective? How can a FACT not be objective? Is THAT what I am claiming? Did you read my link? Did you? If you did, I think you miscomprehended it.

Really? When was the last time a CEO was killed in a coal mine disaster or a crane collapse? Who was the last CEO to be killed in a steel mill accident? Who was the last CEO to die on an oil rig? I suppose risk of death or injury doesn't count in your world. You sure write some rubbish.

From your link: You were saying? You missed a bit (deliberately, I'm sure). Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

When Florida increased its minimum wage a few years ago (2005-6) the business lobby and Governor Bush said exactly the same thing (as always), however, employment went UP. So your theory apears to be faulty. Link please Here you go: http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2006/05/01/daily29.html You can find others, confirming the story, if you type "Google" into your browser. It's not hard.

When Florida increased its minimum wage a few years ago (2005-6) the business lobby and Governor Bush said exactly the same thing (as always), however, employment went UP. So your theory apears to be faulty.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that.

STRAWMAN ALERT. I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment." No... I'm asking YOU. You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want. I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment. mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment. So.. how do you PROVE that someone isn't under psychiatric treatment? I understand your desire, but don't get to the practical application of your statement. Do you wish to have all psych records open to public review? I think you have a bad case of false dichotomy and appeal to emotion there, Dr.

Courage like when the Bush administration urged congress to stop the insane home lending practices forced upon lenders through legislation created by the dems before it buried the economy? That boat was sinking, but the dems insisted everyone deserved "affordable housing". It was brought up well before that! (see attached) That says absolutely NOTHING about the decisions made by banks and mortgage brokers, who are the people that select or reject borrowers. You guys must be desperate, because you've been trying the same tactic for months now, and get debunked every time.

The CRA was Carters deal. I'm referring to laws made in the 80/90's brought to us by Chris Dodd (who got a special "friends only" deal on his own mortgage from who else...Countrywide), Barney Frank, and their underlings in congress. These laws dictated dramatically reduced home lending standards, including such lunacy as no proof of income required, no down payment (can you say default risk?), and financing for more than 100% of the homes' value. It was an orchestrated housing bubble. In the name of "affordable housing", standards were lowered to moronic levels, lenders were "encouraged" to make the loans, and were strong-armed by ACORN and others if they tried to pass on loans they could clearly see were destined for failure. Then the government backed Fannie and Freddie with mine and some other Americans tax money to encourage lenders to continue the practice. Now Frank and Dodd blame predatory lenders for issuing the loans. Aren't they a laugh a minute? You have a remarkable talent for sticking to your theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. Not one lender was FORCED to lower lending standards. They did that all by themselves, in the hope of making a big profit. Not one investor was FORCED to buy over leveraged crap. They chose to do that all by themselves in the hope of making a big profit. The lender (think investor) was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending standards were lowered by Franklin Raines and his ilk in cooperation with Dodd and Frank in the name of "affordable housing".. Fannie and Freddie don't make decisions abpout whether or not a given individual is credit worthy. That is entirely up to the bank.

Amendment XIV: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; " Not clear to me that RIGHTS can be denied.

Yeah.. getting atacked and your people killed... does have that kind of resolution to be prepared and to push agenda's that will lessen that possibility. The Contras were attacking us? Allende was attacking us? Saddam Hussein was attacking us? Mossadegh was attacking us?

Don't lawyers bill by the 1/10 hour?

Ole Tom also had some funny ideas about religion, about women being chattel, and about non-white races being inferior. A slave owner, he also fathered children by at least one of his slaves.

3 days into your poll it seems that 43% of self professed righties support torture, and 18% of self-styled lefties support torture. I would venture that as a significant divergence of opinion based on political inclination. C

When you get enough "cherry-picked" data points that don't go the way you want them to, then it becomes proof that the theory is invalid. And there are indeed enough of those. You can't just ignore the data points that don't fit your desired mold. Sorry, but you are the person who is ignoring data points that don't agree with you and just concentrating on the few that do ("cherry picking"). Statistical analysis requires you to include all the data, not just the data that you like. And I don't recall there being a theory mentioned, just a statement of statistical correlation. No-one suggested causation. You protest too much.

Cult of personality. More like relief that 8 years of intestinal gas has finally passed.

OK.

I expect it's the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

Well, first you have to tell us what the meaning of "is" is. Which, I suspect, IS his point.

we will continue to see things get worse until our tax and labor figures become competitive with the rest of the world. Do you really want our US labor force to be paid like 3rd world workers? Really? I'm sure the US execs would like to be paying their skilled workers $1.45/hr, like in China.