In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Really?? You need to work on your cynicism man. It's just a normal case of a side supporting the one that benefits them. D pres dealing with uncooperate R congress? The D's favor powerful executive weak congress. R favors congress. R pres dealing with uncooperative D congress? The R's favor powerful executive and weak congress; and D's the other way.
You're making the foolish mistake of conflating the current way the power lies, and the stances people take because they happen to support what they want; with the actual beliefs of that side.
On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote: yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?
the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to: 1) a restatement of said notion 2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)
you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.
the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...
What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.
The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist.
i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.
linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?
re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question.
OK, so you're just trolling. Got it.
no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere.
the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that:
that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender.
i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three:
A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.
this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B).
on another note: poor bastard cory.
Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing.
Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs.
Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over.
As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Really?? You need to work on your cynicism man. It's just a normal case of a side supporting the one that benefits them. D pres dealing with uncooperate R congress? The D's favor powerful executive weak congress. R favors congress. R pres dealing with uncooperative D congress? The R's favor powerful executive and weak congress; and D's the other way.
You're making the foolish mistake of conflating the current way the power lies, and the stances people take because they happen to support what they want; with the actual beliefs of that side.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats push for more when they are in power, I agree. But the stated goals of the Democrat party (and it's leadership) requires all those signs I talked about. If the Republicans REALLY stood for small government, they would oppose it.
So that's the difference. The left's vision requires everything I mentioned, while the conservative's vision does not.
There are no ideas in that video, just right-wing frothing at the mouth and typical fear-mongering. You complain about my throwaway posts that lack articulation, that video was the exemplar of that.
On January 29 2014 14:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:33 Roe wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Absence of evidence that I'm critical of him isn't evidence that I'm a leftist. And yes, I've agreed that a veto against congress trying to fudge the Iran negotiations is a good idea.
Second paragraph: I have no idea what your conclusion is or how that ties into what I said. Again, are you saying that's a leftist position? Whatever you're trying to conclude about left positions on taxes, taxes aren't theft.
If the thread really is full of examples of Obama being a leftist, prove it since it should be easy. But you can't, because he's for the most part a conservative.
First, don't critcize me for providing no evidence and then just assert things. How is he conservative?
No, that alone is not evidence that you are a lefty. But your other posts do (and your absurd claim that Obama is conservative. Maybe he is for Canada?)
The left's postition is that taxes are used not only to fund the government, but redistribute wealth. That is, in my opnion, theft.
Let's see: Obamacare, higher taxes, more regulation, using more and more executive authority (on things like Obamacare), pushing for more gun control, tighter wall street regualtion, etc....
I didn't criticize you for providing no evidence, I criticized you for making judgements against me without any evidence. Obama is a conservative because he constantly backs down to republicans, giving them what they want, and never challenges the establishment.
ACA favours the corporate more than the people and was largely seen as a watered down version of healthcare reform. Higher taxes? They returned to the previous status quo. If anything this is conservative, but I don't think taxes have any place in the right/left spectrum (intrinsically). The entire united states is quite conservative compared to other advanced countries. His regulations have been watered down just like ACA. Executive orders are at one of the lowest uses in modern history. Judging by that metric Bush,Reagan, and Eisenhower were even further to the left of Obama.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 Harry S. Truman 907 Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 John F. Kennedy 214 Lyndon B. Johnson 325 Richard Nixon 346 Gerald R. Ford 169 Jimmy Carter 320 Ronald Reagan 381 George H.W. Bush 166 Bill Clinton 364 George W. Bush 291 Barack Obama (as of 01/14/14) 167
So again, I cannot see the proof for your statements that Obama is a leftist and not a conservative.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Really?? You need to work on your cynicism man. It's just a normal case of a side supporting the one that benefits them. D pres dealing with uncooperate R congress? The D's favor powerful executive weak congress. R favors congress. R pres dealing with uncooperative D congress? The R's favor powerful executive and weak congress; and D's the other way.
You're making the foolish mistake of conflating the current way the power lies, and the stances people take because they happen to support what they want; with the actual beliefs of that side.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats push for more when they are in power, I agree. But the stated goals of the Democrat party (and it's leadership) requires all those signs I talked about. If the Republicans REALLY stood for small government, they would oppose it.
So that's the difference. The left's vision requires everything I mentioned, while the conservative's vision does not.
a) no, it doesn't. b) what their visions are counts for a lot less than what their actions are; and in terms of actions, republicans support big government just as much as democrats. c) big government is not the same thing as separation of powers issues, so you changed the target of the discussion invalidly. The issue here is about separation of powers and possible abuses thereof, don't bring in other issues to try to make yourself seem in the right.
d) i'm not going to argue with you further; you are wrong, and this is the internet, and I do not have the time to correct everybody who is wrong on the internet.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
What is left or right to me is not a relative thing to what other side believes but relative to where the country is on an issue. For example I would call the 2010 republican caucus is very far right because there opinions on a host of issues differ from what the majority of the country feels.
To put this to an example since something like 65% of the country supports a minimum wage increase I would not call doing that a far left move but a center move even if it is opposed by the republican party because the country determines the middle and if you are to the left or right of the country then that determines what is the left or right.
There are no ideas in that video, just right-wing frothing at the mouth and typical fear-mongering. You complain about my throwaway posts that lack articulation, that video was the exemplar of that.
On January 29 2014 14:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:33 Roe wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Absence of evidence that I'm critical of him isn't evidence that I'm a leftist. And yes, I've agreed that a veto against congress trying to fudge the Iran negotiations is a good idea.
Second paragraph: I have no idea what your conclusion is or how that ties into what I said. Again, are you saying that's a leftist position? Whatever you're trying to conclude about left positions on taxes, taxes aren't theft.
If the thread really is full of examples of Obama being a leftist, prove it since it should be easy. But you can't, because he's for the most part a conservative.
First, don't critcize me for providing no evidence and then just assert things. How is he conservative?
No, that alone is not evidence that you are a lefty. But your other posts do (and your absurd claim that Obama is conservative. Maybe he is for Canada?)
The left's postition is that taxes are used not only to fund the government, but redistribute wealth. That is, in my opnion, theft.
Let's see: Obamacare, higher taxes, more regulation, using more and more executive authority (on things like Obamacare), pushing for more gun control, tighter wall street regualtion, etc....
I didn't criticize you for providing no evidence, I criticized you for making judgements against me without any evidence. Obama is a conservative because he constantly backs down to republicans, giving them what they want, and never challenges the establishment.
ACA favours the corporate more than the people and was largely seen as a watered down version of healthcare reform. Higher taxes? They returned to the previous status quo. If anything this is conservative, but I don't think taxes have any place in the right/left spectrum (intrinsically). The entire united states is quite conservative compared to other advanced countries. His regulations have been watered down just like ACA. Executive orders are at one of the lowest uses in modern history. Judging by that metric Bush,Reagan, and Eisenhower were even further to the left of Obama.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 Harry S. Truman 907 Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 John F. Kennedy 214 Lyndon B. Johnson 325 Richard Nixon 346 Gerald R. Ford 169 Jimmy Carter 320 Ronald Reagan 381 George H.W. Bush 166 Bill Clinton 364 George W. Bush 291 Barack Obama (as of 01/14/14) 167
So again, I cannot see the proof for your statements that Obama is a leftist and not a conservative.
My assesment that you are a liberal/progressive seems pretty spot on to me. I've read your posts....
ACA moved healthcare further under government control. He got passed what he could, just because he had to lessen his desires at the demands of his own party doesn't make him a conservative. You seem to think that to be a progressive one must be (A) completely successful, and (B) not corrupt.
So please, show me how he's a conservative. In the American sense, since this is the USA politics thread. The Repubs are conceding to him, not the other way around.
"Returned to the status quo." I love this line, because it chooses some arbitrary point and makes it the standard. The Bush tax cuts were in place for ~10 yrs. That WAS the status quo, now it's upped. As to you saying it's conservative... what? Tax issues are very politcal, and the left loves to raise them (for isntance, Obamacare is chock full of them).
Executive order count alone is not enough. EO's are fine for their intended purpose. It's when Obama says "I've got a pen and I've got a phone" one has to start being concerned.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Really?? You need to work on your cynicism man. It's just a normal case of a side supporting the one that benefits them. D pres dealing with uncooperate R congress? The D's favor powerful executive weak congress. R favors congress. R pres dealing with uncooperative D congress? The R's favor powerful executive and weak congress; and D's the other way.
You're making the foolish mistake of conflating the current way the power lies, and the stances people take because they happen to support what they want; with the actual beliefs of that side.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats push for more when they are in power, I agree. But the stated goals of the Democrat party (and it's leadership) requires all those signs I talked about. If the Republicans REALLY stood for small government, they would oppose it.
So that's the difference. The left's vision requires everything I mentioned, while the conservative's vision does not.
a) no, it doesn't. b) what their visions are counts for a lot less than what their actions are; and in terms of actions, republicans support big government just as much as democrats. c) big government is not the same thing as separation of powers issues, so you changed the target of the discussion invalidly. The issue here is about separation of powers and possible abuses thereof, don't bring in other issues to try to make yourself seem in the right.
d) i'm not going to argue with you further; you are wrong, and this is the internet, and I do not have the time to correct everybody who is wrong on the internet.
What is your point a) referring to?
I just SAID that the Republican's are for expanding their own power. Republicans=/=Conservatives.
No, big government is very much related to separation of powers. The Constitution set out to make a limited government with branches that check each other. The Progressive ideal requires consolidating power and bigger government that can act whenever it needs to. Do you not agree that if separation of powers was the standard that the federal government would be much, MUCH smaller? Besides the left likes both (if you really want to separate them.) They favor a more powerful executive and a much stronger federal government. One necessarily entails the other.
The people in this thread are perfect examples! They continue to defend Obama's statements because he can use his authority to bring about their agenda.
As an example, take any country that has a much bigger government (proportionally of course) then the US. Would you argue that the separation of powers is lacking in all of the european countries, just because we have a bigger government then you do?
Seperation of powers works completely independent of the size of government, as long as all of the three powers are still strong enough to keep each other in check. It stops working when one of the powers (usually the executive) becomes so strong that the others can no longer keep it in check, but that is a relative value compared to the other powers, not an absolute.
On January 29 2014 12:22 Introvert wrote: Thank goodness that's over. He didn't actually say anything (well, besides "I'll act on my own!"). This is one of those times I hope he doesn't mean what he says... At least he hit every talking point.
But this push for more executive action really is the scary part.
like what, trying to save negotiations from congress' sabotage?
obama's always doing flowery language and then backing down to his conservative side
I like how you refer to the House, in theory the closest branch to the people, as "sabotaging."
When he was re-elected, so was the House. When he was re-elected, the Constitution was not also up for election. That doesn't GO up for election. So yes, when he acts outside the bounds of the law for expediency, it concerns me. How can you trust ANY politician with that kind of power?
He's still far left. Just because he doesn't act to the astounding extent you apparently want him to doesn't mean he's not far left.
What laws is Obama breaking?
FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind...
Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent.
Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution.
So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal?
Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June).
I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again....
The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened.
So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid.
Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant.
If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge!
Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not.
People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
GOP Congressman Is Not Sorry For Threatening Reporter, Says He Expects Respect
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) made no apologies for threatening a television reporter after the State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Far from it, in fact. Grimm said in a statement late Tuesday that he aggressively confronted NY1's Michael Scotto because he was "extremely annoyed" by the reporter's question.
Moreover, Grimm said he expects a "certain level of professionalism and respect" from reporters and that such skirmishes between lawmakers and journalists are typical.
"I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last," Grimm said in the statement (posted below).
Scotto tried to pose a question about allegations regarding Grimm's campaign finances, but the Republican had none of it.
"I'm not speaking to you off-topic, this is only about the President," Grimm said before storming off camera.
Scotto explained Grimm's refusal to answer the question before ending the segment. Then, with the camera still rolling, Grimm turned belligerent.
"Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f*****g balcony," Grimm said as he moved menacingly toward Scotto.
Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," leading to some inaudible crosstalk. Grimm then levied another threat.
"No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy," Grimm said.
NY1 has video of the incident, replete with subtitles and audio. It can be viewed here.
NY1 political director Bob Hardt is demanding an apology from Grimm.
Grimm's statement:
"I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests. The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic. I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last."
GOP Congressman Is Not Sorry For Threatening Reporter, Says He Expects Respect
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) made no apologies for threatening a television reporter after the State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Far from it, in fact. Grimm said in a statement late Tuesday that he aggressively confronted NY1's Michael Scotto because he was "extremely annoyed" by the reporter's question.
Moreover, Grimm said he expects a "certain level of professionalism and respect" from reporters and that such skirmishes between lawmakers and journalists are typical.
"I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last," Grimm said in the statement (posted below).
Scotto tried to pose a question about allegations regarding Grimm's campaign finances, but the Republican had none of it.
"I'm not speaking to you off-topic, this is only about the President," Grimm said before storming off camera.
Scotto explained Grimm's refusal to answer the question before ending the segment. Then, with the camera still rolling, Grimm turned belligerent.
"Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f*****g balcony," Grimm said as he moved menacingly toward Scotto.
Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," leading to some inaudible crosstalk. Grimm then levied another threat.
"No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy," Grimm said.
NY1 has video of the incident, replete with subtitles and audio. It can be viewed here.
NY1 political director Bob Hardt is demanding an apology from Grimm.
Grimm's statement:
"I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests. The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic. I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last."
On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote: yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?
the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to: 1) a restatement of said notion 2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)
you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.
the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...
What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.
The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist.
i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.
linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?
re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question.
OK, so you're just trolling. Got it.
no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere.
the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that:
that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender.
i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three:
A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.
this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B).
on another note: poor bastard cory.
Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing.
Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs.
Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over.
As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that.
more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic.
i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor).
so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact.
pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless...
On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote: yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?
the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to: 1) a restatement of said notion 2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)
you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.
the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...
What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.
The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist.
i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.
linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?
re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question.
OK, so you're just trolling. Got it.
no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere.
the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that:
that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender.
i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three:
A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.
this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B).
on another note: poor bastard cory.
Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing.
Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs.
Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over.
As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that.
more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic.
i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor).
so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact.
pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless...
There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo.
Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic...
There are no ideas in that video, just right-wing frothing at the mouth and typical fear-mongering. You complain about my throwaway posts that lack articulation, that video was the exemplar of that.
On January 29 2014 14:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:33 Roe wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:
On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote: I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle.
you mean the boogy man?
So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate.
then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian.
Actually you quite clearly illustrated what you think of the left:
When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left.
Again, how is this a leftist notion? The left-wing is republican and pro-separation of powers.
Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like.
Maybe I'm not understanding this point, but are you saying a leftist would rob money out of the wealthy's bank accounts? What exactly are you insinuating? And can you name anything he's pushed through that is far left? By far left I'm guessing you mean Maoist/Stalinist? (The reason I say that is because I don't think there's anything farther than far left). Next you define a left as someone who talks about and actively tries to achieve certain goals. Well...isn't this merely any politician, or activist? So again, I don't think you know what a leftist is
Given what I read (both elsewhere and here) it's a safe bet to say that the left values a powerful executive who can step over Congress if they are being "obstructionist." I certainly haven't seen any of you here attacking the president's executive actions. Quite the contrary.
Taking the money of the wealthy because they have to much of it (or whatever reason you want to use) is justifying theft. When the government takes more than it needs for its legitimate function, then it's theft. Couple this with the idea that government should always be active (and thus always growing)....
This thread is full of examples of Obama's lefti-ness. But I doubt you would consider any of that far left. I didn't say he was a stalinist.
Absence of evidence that I'm critical of him isn't evidence that I'm a leftist. And yes, I've agreed that a veto against congress trying to fudge the Iran negotiations is a good idea.
Second paragraph: I have no idea what your conclusion is or how that ties into what I said. Again, are you saying that's a leftist position? Whatever you're trying to conclude about left positions on taxes, taxes aren't theft.
If the thread really is full of examples of Obama being a leftist, prove it since it should be easy. But you can't, because he's for the most part a conservative.
First, don't critcize me for providing no evidence and then just assert things. How is he conservative?
No, that alone is not evidence that you are a lefty. But your other posts do (and your absurd claim that Obama is conservative. Maybe he is for Canada?)
The left's postition is that taxes are used not only to fund the government, but redistribute wealth. That is, in my opnion, theft.
Let's see: Obamacare, higher taxes, more regulation, using more and more executive authority (on things like Obamacare), pushing for more gun control, tighter wall street regualtion, etc....
I didn't criticize you for providing no evidence, I criticized you for making judgements against me without any evidence. Obama is a conservative because he constantly backs down to republicans, giving them what they want, and never challenges the establishment.
ACA favours the corporate more than the people and was largely seen as a watered down version of healthcare reform. Higher taxes? They returned to the previous status quo. If anything this is conservative, but I don't think taxes have any place in the right/left spectrum (intrinsically). The entire united states is quite conservative compared to other advanced countries. His regulations have been watered down just like ACA. Executive orders are at one of the lowest uses in modern history. Judging by that metric Bush,Reagan, and Eisenhower were even further to the left of Obama.
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 Harry S. Truman 907 Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 John F. Kennedy 214 Lyndon B. Johnson 325 Richard Nixon 346 Gerald R. Ford 169 Jimmy Carter 320 Ronald Reagan 381 George H.W. Bush 166 Bill Clinton 364 George W. Bush 291 Barack Obama (as of 01/14/14) 167
So again, I cannot see the proof for your statements that Obama is a leftist and not a conservative.
My assesment that you are a liberal/progressive seems pretty spot on to me. I've read your posts....
ACA moved healthcare further under government control. He got passed what he could, just because he had to lessen his desires at the demands of his own party doesn't make him a conservative. You seem to think that to be a progressive one must be (A) completely successful, and (B) not corrupt.
So please, show me how he's a conservative. In the American sense, since this is the USA politics thread. The Repubs are conceding to him, not the other way around.
"Returned to the status quo." I love this line, because it chooses some arbitrary point and makes it the standard. The Bush tax cuts were in place for ~10 yrs. That WAS the status quo, now it's upped. As to you saying it's conservative... what? Tax issues are very politcal, and the left loves to raise them (for isntance, Obamacare is chock full of them).
Executive order count alone is not enough. EO's are fine for their intended purpose. It's when Obama says "I've got a pen and I've got a phone" one has to start being concerned.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote: yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?
the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to: 1) a restatement of said notion 2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)
you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.
the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...
What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.
The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist.
i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.
linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?
re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question.
OK, so you're just trolling. Got it.
no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere.
the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that:
that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender.
i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three:
A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.
this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B).
on another note: poor bastard cory.
Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing.
Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs.
Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over.
As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that.
more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic.
i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor).
so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact.
pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless...
There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo.
Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic...
ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now.
your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts.
all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it.
it is bumming me out to be honest.
i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious.
you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong[sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture.
Why is taxing wealthier persons robbing but having inside companies a majority of badly paid people and a few swimming in money not? Yeah I know ceos are extremely important and valuable thats why they get so much money for ensuring shareholders get their short terms benefits (and even when they do badly, the golden parachute is always there).
Inequality is at its peak in the US and it s a strange thing because the only solution is to tax the welthiest more because if the gov were to raise the minimal wage prices would just get increase and the situation would stay the same.
But taxing the rich poses problems because first they are better educated so they vote more, it s some kind of gamble (and waiting for the discontent of the middle and low class to grow more is one too) so they might not get reelected. It also breaks the Americam dream a little : not the social ladder which is almost inexistant but the opportunities for the the young foreign elites who flood america and maintain the money there.
EPT
