|
|
err, is that video for real?
|
On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is.
There was a "crackdown" under Bush but it only targeted a handful of people so I'm not sure how much of a chilling effect it had. I believe the only person to go to jail was Max Hardcore. Quite notably, a woman was convicted of writing obscene stories. Everyone who talks about how America has free speech compared to other countries quite conveniently ignores how the government in America can arrest you for writing stories deemed too inappropriate. True, it was only one person, and she accepted a plea bargain for house arrest and probation, in part to avoid a trial because she is an agoraphobe (which is suppose also makes house arrest a bit less harsh? Still unacceptable, however).
|
On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that.
How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane).
Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/
|
On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that.
Based on the video, I think Obama and Romney are essentially saying the same thing -- people should feel very fortunate to live in America. Obama is simply stating that the government and your taxes helps facilitate the high standard of living that makes success and opportunity possible.
Acknowledging that government has a role in facilitating individual success is not the same as 'not respecting private business'. And only a paranoid delusional nutbar, unpatriotic anti-tax hypocrite, or Mitt Romney, would conflate the two.
|
On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/
Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made.
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general.
|
On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that.
Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better.
|
On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general.
The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples?
|
On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better.
Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers."
I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force.
I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%.
|
On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%.
What the hell does "actual" even mean? According to you, of course. Everyone else here seems to be in agreement over the standards used to measure unemployment.
|
On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples?
It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business.
Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances.
|
On September 17 2012 07:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%. What the hell does "actual" even mean? According to you, of course. Everyone else here seems to be in agreement over the standards used to measure unemployment.
I wonder if "workforce participation" would be a relevant figure. I hear that number is about as low as it's been for quite a long time.
|
I really can't believe that the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. It's such a stupid claim that it almost defies explanation....
Of course, the explanation that readily comes to mind is that the administration did, in fact, have "actionable" intelligence that the attacks were coming and ignored it.
|
On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that.
It is easier to be successful, by any possible measure, in the United States than in the third world. You're really going to argue that since the general level of wealth is higher in the United States, none of us are more successful because are peers are equally well off? Ridiculous.
As somebody else mentioned, I would love to see some of your examples of Obama showing that he doesn't value and respect private businesses. It's already been pointed out, about a million times now, that his 'you didn't build that' quote is referring to the infrastructure that the government provides that allows its citizens to do business and make money. Even more specifically, he was talking about roads and bridges that were not build by a hypothetical business owner.
Of course, you would have to watch about 30 seconds before and after the one line to hear that.
|
On September 17 2012 07:13 xDaunt wrote:
I really can't believe that the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. It's such a stupid claim that it almost defies explanation....
Of course, the explanation that readily comes to mind is that the administration did, in fact, have "actionable" intelligence that the attacks were coming and ignored it.
Wow.
Now you're just making speculating and making stuff up now?
Weakness. I know you want Obama to lose but you're grasping.
|
|
|
On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances.
Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help?
|
On September 17 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:13 xDaunt wrote:
I really can't believe that the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. It's such a stupid claim that it almost defies explanation....
Of course, the explanation that readily comes to mind is that the administration did, in fact, have "actionable" intelligence that the attacks were coming and ignored it. Wow. Now you're just making speculating and making stuff up now? Weakness. I know you want Obama to lose but you're grasping.
I'm open to alternative theories of why the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated in the face of 1) overwhelming tactical evidence that they were, and 2) claims from numerous countries and journalistic outfits that the Obama administration was warned of the attacks ahead of time.
|
On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%.
So my argument about the fact that there are different definitions and types of measures of unemployment is unrelated to your claim about what the so-called "actual" unemployment rate is? Let me repeat: the most common measure of unemployment is U3. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. According to how unemployment is defined by the ILO, which is what the U3 measure is based on, the current unemployment rate is 8.1%. That's the "actual unemployment rate" as defined by the ILO and as calculated by most states.
Now, you're free to disagree with that definition, and you're free to prefer using other measures of unemployment, for example U4, U5 or U6. But it's idiotic to declare that the "actual unemployment rate is not 8.1%", when it clearly is according to the commonly-accepted definition of unemployment and the measure of unemployment universally used.
|
On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances.
You know that someone has no argument when it hinges enitirely on the litigation of a single word and its proper grammatical use.
I heard Romney once referred to his wife as 'he'. I guess that means Ann Romney is a transvestite. And there is no amount of evidence that can convince me otherwise.
It's not just that the argument is weak, it's actually ... pathetic. Like a 5 year old holding his breath so he can get a juice box.
|
On September 17 2012 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On September 17 2012 07:13 xDaunt wrote:
I really can't believe that the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. It's such a stupid claim that it almost defies explanation....
Of course, the explanation that readily comes to mind is that the administration did, in fact, have "actionable" intelligence that the attacks were coming and ignored it. Wow. Now you're just making speculating and making stuff up now? Weakness. I know you want Obama to lose but you're grasping. I'm open to alternative theories of why the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated in the face of 1) overwhelming tactical evidence that they were, and 2) claims from numerous countries and journalistic outfits that the Obama administration was warned of the attacks ahead of time.
I haven't read a report that they where warned of the attacks in Lybia ahead of time. I think your confusing Egypt and Lybia. Also, bear in mind there are multiple plots, every year since 9/11, to attack something on it's anniversary. Even if there was evidence, it might not be actionable.
I haven't read anywhere that the administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. They might be investigating it still. But links, plz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
