Bryan
-
Posts
1,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bryan
-
-
What position does that favor?
Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat, you mean? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If favors a number of interpretations. One, that the choice of Scozzafava was a blunder (though she shot herself in the foot in addition with some odd behavior during what there was of her campaign). The Democrats chose a moderate Democrat to run. That was smart. It comes down to the fact that the GOP just did not have a good candidate to run in NY23. Hoffman, for example, was susceptible to the charge of carpetbagging.
I suppose one could attribute the election result to the endorsement rather than to the rising intensity of the far right producing a candidate that moderate R's had trouble supporting.Well, if one added the Scozzafava vote to the Hoffman vote then Hoffman should have won. Either liberals were voting for Scozzafava to begin with or her endorsement really did make a difference to Republican voters (possibly both, of course).
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/20...zzafava-fading/
But as the latter effect may very well be the cause of the endorsement and the thing that gave it whatever effectiveness it may have had, it looks to me like both of those explanations support the same conclusion, which is that the increased influence of the far right lost this election for the R's. Do you have a third explanation in mind?You can always arrange the evidence to support the conclusion that the influence of the far right lost the election. And I think it was undeniably a factor--but a small one. Does it make sense for the GOP to run a candidate to the left of the Democrat in a conservative district? No, it really doesn't. I think of the factors involved the most important is the one I've already pointed out: The GOP did not have a strong candidate to put forward. They could have taken Hoffman. But aside from being more conservative then either Scozzafava or Owens he had little in his favor. He was fairly low on the charisma scale, you could say. And a bit of a carpetbagger. But for all that he may have won if Scozzafava had demonstrated some party loyalty. The three percentage points separating them is a slim margin, after all.
We love to try to find the big trends in these types of races. But amidst the basics of having a good candidate, the signs of national political trends are faint.
-
The spin and counterspin on this board is hilarious.
Just going to point out a few things.
1) Scozzafava was not the incumbent in NY23. It was a special election with no incumbent ("The R's had a moderate and popular incumbent who was a shoo-in"???). Why nobody mentioned that Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out of the race is anybody's guess. She was arguably to the political left of the Democrat in the race.
2) President Obama placed at least some importance on the NJ governor's race. If not, then he would not have spent time campaigning for Corzine. This is beyond obvious.
3) The tendency of Virginia to have a governor of the opposite party of the President is interesting and possibly relevant. The American people, it seems, like to see the parties check each other. Unified government is rare in the U.S.
4) With apologies to the spinmeisters, there's no gauging the impact of this election on President Obama's election chances. NY23 doesn't mean a whole lot. Virginia and New Jersey at least demonstrate that the GOP can still win elections. But if the election tells no story of the support for Barack Obama, national polling tells a different story. Obama's agenda is unpopular, and his personal popularity is gradually dropping as a result of that (also because of the weak economy).
My opinion? As things stand, Obama probably wins a second term. But he may have to learn to work with a slimmer congressional majority and may even lose a house of Congress or two before he's through in office. If his foreign policy continues to be a disaster (he has nothing to show except a Nobel Prize, as far as I can tell), then there is a chance the American people will turn him out of office after one term. The economy will also play a big role, but the public may remain patient with the president if that's the only big problem.
It is easy to see parallels between Obama and our two previous Democratic presidents. Obama so far resembles Jimmy Carter on foreign policy, but Bill Clinton on domestic policy (though well to the left of Clinton and with a more aggressive push for his agenda).
Obama aside, Congress really is a mess.
-
Wait a minute, Bryan. The DNC is not the DSC. That was just a mistake on your part, right?
Yep. Mistake on my part (except I never admit mistakes, so keep it quiet).
-
The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.
Now there's an electoral strategy for you.
Note:
(it was correctly pointed out that the thread title names the DNC as admitting responsibility, whereas the responsibility was admitted by the DSC. I can't amend the title of the thread at this point, so this will have to serve as the correction. My apologies for the error.)
-
Wow. Your "legal training" by right-wing blog can be a dangerous thing. I'll address the key misunderstandings in your most recent posting and leave it at that.
Are you trying to say that the footnote quotation was taken out of context? Was it your insincerity that sabotaged your grammar?
Yes, it was out of context. It was also misrepresented by you.
There's no way the footnote is taken out of context. It has sufficient internal context to stand on its own. And here is the paragraph to which the "footnote was attached (curious you didn't do this in order to justify your claim that it was taken out of context):
A
Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.10
That language (I deleted your bold and font increase) goes to the heart of the case! It's language you don't understand. One more (and last) time: the first sentence of your quoted/big/bold language deals with disparate impact discrimination.
And do I not understand that because I have not bothered to comment on it (appeal to silence) or because I have conflated two concepts (still waiting for the quotation(s) as evidence)?
Ginsburg concludes there was disparate impact and that justified the city's failure to certify the promotion list. The second sentence goes to disparate treatment/inentional discrimination, which was the claim made by white and hispanic firefighters on the list that didn't get certified. The second sentence is Ginsburg saying there was no disparate treatment/intentional discrimination against the white/hispanic firefighters from the city's failure to certify. In other words, it is EXACTLY the same legal conclusions reached by the district court and the Second Circuit/Sotomayor. You bolded the right language, you just don't get it.If I don't get it, then why did you switch my point from legal reasoning to the legal conclusion? Is it that you don't understand that more than one method of reasoning can reach a single conclusion? Or are you just naturally dishonest?
Baloney. The footnote absolutely belies your claim. If Ginsburg had intended to merely say that the lower courts did a fine job then she could have followed Sotomayor's course and simply written that and had done with it. Not only did she not do that, she led off the portion of her dissent following her critique of the majority view with an introduction that included footnote 10. There is no way you can plausibly dance around the content of that note. I'm amused that you're even trying.Should I add that Ginsburg did not include the root word "affirm" in her dissent, in support of the Second Circuit's decision?
If you read the opinion through, you will see this was a tough legal battle between the majority and the dissent, especially between Ginsburg and Alito's concurrence. It's one of the most important civil rights laws. Ginsburg expressed her opinion on disparate impact and disparate treatment at length -- by her own words in the dissent, she says the majority's opinion will not have lasting power.
As to the affirmance point, let me reduce it to Law 101:
The 5-justice majority REVERSED and remanded the case. The 4-justice minority DISSENTED from the majority.
And somehow you still haven't gotten around to the text of Ginsburg's footnote, where she states that the rationale for the legal reasoning is presented instead of remanding the case to the lower court occurs because of the decision of the majority. It's a fairly straightforward statement and thus difficult for you to spin. I don't envy you the task one bit.
Can you ever forgive me for reading conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy including posts by law professor Jonathan Adler? It's just crazy to pay attention to something written by a blogger!Yes, if you do it without a critical mind.
Well, see, that's just it. You make like you object, but the objection is couched in terms of an if/then statement. You don't just assume that I read law blogs without bringing a critical mind to it, do you? If you have evidence with which to make a claim that I used an uncritical mind then wouldn't it be appropriate to share it? But thus far that isn't your style, is it? You like to work without evidence.
If that's all it meant, then why did Ginsburg include the part about the lower courts emphasizing intent? If she meant what you say she meant, then wouldn't she have been far better off not blurting out anything that seemed critical of the rationale used by the lower court? Apparently you're not enjoying your cognitive dissonance. So sorry.You've mixed the two yet again.
Did I mix the two by completely ignoring them or by conflating them? If the latter, please quote the relevant portion as concisely as possible and explain your charge. It looks like you're following the Liar's Manual again.
Per the district court, the Second Circuit and the Ginsburg dissent, the city's failure to certify was not intentionl/disparate treatment discrimination against the whites/hispanics on that list. But it would have been disparate impact discrimination against the African-Americans not on that list if the list had been certified.The sidebar here is that the conservative/right-wing legal world has been trying to overrule disparate treatment discrimination. They almost succeeded in Ricci; it was restricted significantly, but thanks to Kennedy it is not overruled.
Try giving me a response based on the disparate impact versus treatment that was presented in Ricci.A response to what? I don't take Ginsburg's footnote as a charge that the lower courts relied too much on "intent" as indicative of their focus on intentional discrimination. And if I'm right then it would not be relevant for me to answer as you request. Your own statement above would seem difficult to reconcile with that supposition. So what is supposed to be the relevance? Your need for a red herring?
Sotomayor will make a great justice. Ricci was supported by 7 of 13 judges of the Second Circuit (rehearing en banc) and by 4 justices of the US Supreme Court.One vote difference in each case, and she had cooperated in a summary judgment that might have kept the case from progressing up the judicial hierarchy.
Some testimonial.
You're kind of a wannabe Rumpelstiltskin--you're trying to spin straw into gold.
Seriously, you're pretty good at dodging my points and offering up distractions. But who's buying it?
-
That's not an embellishment. It's an accurate summary. Bush's disdain for science that didn't suit his personal beliefs or fit into his political agenda is well-known. They didn't even try to hide it.
And you think the people surveyed answered with that in mind?
Scientists must be pretty stupid if that's the case. Can't they just read the questions and answer them accordingly?
-
LaClair flunks spot-check for accuracy:
7. The Bush administration repeatedly was at odds with science. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549And odd issue to see on a survey, I thought.
(M)ost scientists say they believe claims that the Bush administration suppressed some research findings by government scientists.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
Does anyone need for me to point out how LaClair embellished the findings of the survey?
We'll just have to wait a few years to see how Obama fares when this question is asked with some history behind it. Perhaps Obama will be able to rely on poor coverage of his less heroic deeds.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/po...ry5117890.shtml
We should compare the above the the most egregious case used to criticize Bush on the point, in order to establish proportion.
-
The language you cite is from a footnote in the dissent that you take out of context.
Are you trying to say that the footnote quotation was taken out of context? Was it your insincerity that sabotaged your grammar?
There's no way the footnote is taken out of context. It has sufficient internal context to stand on its own. And here is the paragraph to which the footnote was attached (curious you didn't do this in order to justify your claim that it was taken out of context):
III
A
Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.10
Since you don't want to discuss the differences between intentional discrimination and disparate impact discrimination, and the difficult questions arising from the tension between those two under Title VII, I'll reduce it to this: Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci (in which she was joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer) voted to AFFIRM the Second Circuit/Sotomayor decision. Affirm, period.Baloney. The footnote absolutely belies your claim. If Ginsburg had intended to merely say that the lower courts did a fine job then she could have followed Sotomayor's course and simply written that and had done with it. Not only did she not do that, she led off the portion of her dissent following her critique of the majority view with an introduction that included footnote 10. There is no way you can plausibly dance around the content of that note. I'm amused that you're even trying.
Should I add that Ginsburg did not include the root word "affirm" in her dissent, in support of the Second Circuit's decision?
Your citation to a portion of that footnote is curious. A quick google search shows that the right wing blogosphere is using that portion of the footnote like you -- in effect to rewrite an outcome and disregard the difficult questions the Supreme Court and lower courts were addressing in Ricci.Can you ever forgive me for reading conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy including posts by law professor Jonathan Adler? It's just crazy to pay attention to something written by a blogger!
What does that footnote mean? The dissent would have liked further fact finding by the district court on the disparate impact discrimination concern. In other words, the dissent would have preferred not to rule on the meaning of the law/Title VII. The majority didn't want any more fact finding and was ready to rule on the law. So the issue of the two theories of discrimination was joined. Ginsburg's dissent AFFIRMS the Second Circuit.If that's all it meant, then why did Ginsburg include the part about the lower courts emphasizing intent? If she meant what you say she meant, then wouldn't she have been far better off not blurting out anything that seemed critical of the rationale used by the lower court? Apparently you're not enjoying your cognitive dissonance. So sorry.
Here's what the footnote really means: You're sunk.
I repeat, the Second Circuit decision was masterful in its conclusion and brevity.I've got a great idea for you. Try repeating it a million more times. Maybe that will make it true.
Seriously, your approach to the problem simply ignores what Ginsburg wrote, which is an extremely close paraphrase of what I had written earlier.
Your posting is insufferable and inaccurate.Well, at least that's a more mature way of whining than "Nanny-nanny boo-boo ..."
Final word: I think Sotomayor will pick up at least a dozen Republicans voting for her confirmation. It'll be at least 72 in favor, maybe as high as 76 or 77. Reason and honesty shall prevail.You're probably right, and it doesn't much matter anyway. The Democrats in the Senate will overlook the incompetence she demonstrated with the Ricci decision and her apparent willingness to lie to the Senate regarding her "wise Latina" comments. And she probably won't be much worse than the rest of the libs on the Court. Most likely the Ricci case is not entirely representative of her work. But it's pretty clear that Obama could have chosen a better (liberal) mind for the Court, and it's equally clear that Republicans who wish to vote "no" to her confirmation have all the justification they need. She is too late in distancing herself from Obama's empathy qualification. And the American public has taken notice. Just like they'll be able to notice your pathetic attempt to sweep footnote #10 under the rug.
-
That would be fine, if you would at the same time address the lack of evidence that befouls your accusations.
I not sure what this means.
It means that you keep asserting/implying that I don't understand a particular distinction in the law but you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in support of that assertion/implication. I'll end the game with this post. Pay attention.
Easy enough to state, I'm sure. Where is Ginsburg's statement to the effect that no intentional discrimination took place?I've quoted it twice already! Here's the final paragraph of the dissent:
This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court’s judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed “asignificant statistical disparity,” but “nothing more.”
The part I bolded is her rejection of the majority's conclusion that the city's refusal to certify was race-based discrimination (against those who made the list).
Right, but it doesn't mention intentions at all. It's as though you're still working from the liar's manual and pretending not to understand the question. Keep paying attention.
The underlined part is Ginsburg's rejection of the majority's conclusion that statistical disparities do not constitute disparate impact discrimination.Right, and I've already explained that partial agreement does not make the disagreement I'm pointing out go away. But for some reason you ignore that (following the liar's manual?).
Keep paying attention.
For Ginsburg, statistical disparities may very well be (disparate impact) discrimination, as the Supreme Court's precedent in Griggs decided. The federal court, the Second Circuit/Sotomayor and Ginsburg would all uphold Griggs.No, as I already explained, the Ginsburg opinion would have recommended remanding the case to the lower court for clarification if it had been the majority opinion. Are you paying attention? Great:
10The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.
Guess who wrote that (or at least signed off on it)? You get one guess, and you're allowed to cheat by using the Internets.
I amaze even myself with my ability to both ignore and conflate two distinct legal theories of discrimination (at the same time?). Can you explain the appearance of contradiction in your charge? Better yet, can you give a specific example of it via quotation?Bryan, with each posting, you're making it more and more clear that you really don't get it. You conflated the two theories by saying the Second Circuit was rejected by Ginsburg.
No, I don't, and just to be clear I am saying that it was the reasoning of the Second Circuit that was rejected. I have the best possible support for my analysis. You're sunk.
You haven't been able to discuss the two forms of legal discrimination that are the core of Ricci.You haven't been able to coherently explain why I should discuss them, and that's a question I asked of you very pointedly. Your own reasoning should lead you to conclude that the mystery person who wrote the big text I quoted above does not understand the distinction, either. Do you want to go there?
You just want to bang Sotomayor without analyzing the law on discrimination.That's true. I consider the analysis you suggest a red herring. It isn't true that I can't criticize the decision without understanding the distinction you insist I must understand. You used that as a big fat distraction technique, perhaps because you're a lawyer and you can't help it. All I really need to understand is how to interpret the English language. You've made your case that I don't understand the issues with a combination of appeal to silence and lies. Did you notice how you weren't able to explain how I both ignore and conflate at the same time?
The Second Circuit/Sotomayor issued a very careful and conservative decision that followed the Griggs Supreme Court precedent. It was masterful.It improperly relied on the city's intent. Maybe you'll begin to see it now, if you've been paying attention.
I don't recall asking you whether it was important to understand the two distinct legal theories of discrimination. I simply asked where I omitted making the distinction where it would be important for me to do so. You haven't addressed that question.I did. Over and over. Again, because you can't debate Ricci without understanding the distinction.
lol
You're arguing in a circle. Is it that my argument could not in principle succeed because I do not understand the distinction, or is it that my argument (as you appeared to suggest) somehow conflates the things that should be kept distinct thus demonstrating that I don't understand the distinction? If the latter, you should be able to quote me instead of insisting that Ricci can't be debated without understanding the distinction. Naturally, you can't afford to get pinned down to either one. The liar's manual forbids it.
We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret.
So when you can't argue a point, you resort to name calling and refuse to address my points? LOL!
lol
What name do you think you were you called, O expert interpreter/debater/whatever? You just like to make stuff up. Let me guess: Was it "you"?
It's the equivalent of a child putting his hands to his ears and repeating, "I'm not listening," after he can't get his way.
Game over, man. Deal with the enlarged text. Your argument based on lies and fallacies is easy enough to defeat (except when it comes to opening the eyes of those with the most severe cases of liberal bias, perhaps), but the game really is over, now. I look forward to your response.
-
Uh, because there are many difference? What other reason would I need????
It's 3 and 1/2 months. There's no time yet for "many" differences!
Yes there is, because as noted previously, Obama has had great success in getting big legislation passed. And it is entirely fair to judge Obama both as to the legislation he has signed as well as for the things he proposes doing.
Yes, there were, but maybe not as many as you think. Like Obama, Clinton actually ran a fairly centrist campaign. He advocated Welfare reform as part of his campaign, for example. The form Welfare reform eventually took angered many Democrats, but that never stopped Clinton from taking credit for it--and since he had campaigned on it he was entitled to some of the credit even though it probably wouldn't have happened unless it was also an aim of the GOP-controlled Congress. To to put a point on it, I've already been over the fact that Clinton was steered toward the middle by Congress.Bill Clinton ran on a "stimulus" package in 1992 and a tax increase on the highest earners. Sound familiar? Congress nixed his stimulus but gave him his tax increase in 1993.
Right. And in 1994 the GOP gained power in Congress. The economy had already begun to rebound under George H. W. Bush, so neither Congress under Clinton needed to get that done. But as I also noted, the biggest economic growth occurred late in Clinton's presidency.
The big difference right now between Obama and Clinton is that Obama has had great success enacting his early policy ideas. And Obama's policy ideas are far different from those that resulted in the 1990s economy. They are more different than they are alike. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Obama has tended toward protectionism and even campaigned on a unilateral reworking of NAFTA.Clinton got a tax increase on high earners in 1993 and so will Obama.
A tax increase by Obama retroactive to 1993 will have a tough time getting through Congress.
Seriously, you're right. He's already got it, in effect, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And then he'll raise quite a few other taxes on high income earners. And that points up another difference between the two. Clinton raised taxes on a growing economy (it wasn't growing fast but it was growing). Obama plans to do it during a recession. It's bad economics, and even Obama has made statements indicating that he understands that. He just isn't willing to act as though he understands it, other than talking about it.
We cannot sustain a trillion dollar a year deficit (and that's without taking into account any of the health care reform spending).That's correct. So you think taxing it away is the thing to do? Think about what the stimulus package is. It is a deliberate action aimed at boosting today's economy by borrowing from tomorrow's economy. It's a classic Keynesian stimulus. If done right, it provides short-run economic benefits (it does not seem to have been done right, largely because the spending has been slow). But you still have to pay it back. You don't get something for nothing. Obama is guaranteeing the necessity of raising taxes with profligate spending. It's no surprise at all to me, but you may end up being surprised if your family makes under $250,000 and you thought Obama wouldn't raise your taxes.
As to NAFTA, its dismantling would hurt Mexico and Canada much more than it would hurt us; it simply has not delivered on its promise. As to the campaign, there were candidates on both the Republican and Democratic side who campaigned on reforming or scuttling NAFTA. It's not going to happen because of the strategic relationship with Mexico. Notice that President Barack Obama has been kinder on NAFTA than candidate Obama?That's consistent with the reports that his campaign informed Canadian officials that the talk of redoing NAFTA was simply campaign rhetoric and not to take it seriously. I don't know if I'd be excited about that if I were you. Regardless of NAFTA, however, Obama has exhibited a protectionist streak. He axed a free trade agreement with Columbia and advocated a "buy American" policy in the Stimulus bill. Then when foreign nations complain he exhibits his strength by changing his mind. What a leader.
It probably lowered tax revenue and helped sustain the economy. But the capital gains tax rate cut is only a small part of the deficit. You know that, but make the argument anyway. And that's your version of honesty?It was YOU, not I, who raised the capital gains tax rate.
Yes, of course. And it was you who used the bogus argument referring to the capital gains tax rate. Are we supposed to forget all about that since I brought up the capital gains tax rate?
After I commented that Bill Clinton increase the top tax income bracket to 39.6% and the economy grew at a record pace, you pointed out that he also lowered the capital gains tax rate.Right, though I had originally pointed out that Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate before you commented that he increased the tax rate for the highest income bracket.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97679
By just taking that one aspect of Clinton policy and pointing to the robust economy of the 1990s, you give the appearance of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In any case, you're radically oversimplifying things by ignoring Clinton's generally conservative approach to the economy.
My point was that the differences in a capital gains tax rate of 15% (Bush II), 20% (Clinton) or 28% (Reagan) has little causal connection to sustained economic growth. I never linked it to the deficit.
"The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months."
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97702
All you numbers predictors look alike to me.
To the contrary, a lowered rate causes more sales of long-term assets, and can actually increase tax revenue as investors seek to cash out. However, it also increases price appreciation and asset value inflation. There are many reasons for the real estate bubble under George Bush -- but one of them was Bush's changes in capital gains taxation.
Actually it was Clinton who applied a special exemption to the capital gains tax rate for the sale of homes. So far as I know, Bush made no change that that exemption.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html
Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive.
Whoa. That's flat out wrong. The Obama position throughout the campaign and as President is to return the long term capital gains tax rate to the lowered Clinton 20% rate for the highest earners. See any news source including the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...1724238901.html
Then, Bryan, using your logic, Obama restoring the 20% capital gains rate will cause the economy to boom, right? That's a good thing, right?
Don't pretend to be using my logic when you oversimplify things. That has been your tendency, not mine. You're partially correct about Obama's capital gains rate increase. He has been reluctant to name a number, but offered hints that it could be up to 28 percent.
When asked about the capital gains rate back in March, Obama told CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo that he “certainly would not go above . . . 28 percent,” adding, “and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-clarifies.html
And it stands to reason that Obama would like a higher rate under better economic conditions. Going up five percent during a recession will help extend the recession. I note that the Senate is prepared to raise the tax on capital gains by 1.45 percent (to 16.45, I believe) to help pay for the Medicare shortfall.
It remains to be seen where the capital gains rate will be fixed. Most likely it will go high enough to discourage economic growth.
I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls.
It was the final year of Bush's term. You can't blame it on Bill Clinton, or 9/11 or the a year and a half of a Democratic Congress who gave Bush the exact stimulus plan he requested (remember the rebate check of a year ago?) and the TARP bailout (after the initial hiccup) and the AIG mop up. I agree there's blame for all on Freddie and Fannie, but Social Security? Please.
My point there is that the Democrats were not at all serious about fiscal responsibility. Their focus was on acquiring political power. I thought that was clear in the context.
That wouldn't affect one penny of our current trillion dollar a year deficit. Bottom line: The Bush economic policies was a house of cards.
See? Oversimplifying things again. The reality of national economics is that it can take years for economic policy to play out. You, for example, blamed Bush for exacerbating the housing bubble with a capital gains tax rate cut when Clinton had already exempted most homes from the capital gains tax in the first place.
Bush certainly gets a share of the blame for the economy meltdown. But there's plenty to go around, even if one wouldn't know it from the way Obama talks.
And Bush's policies did help pull the economy out of a 9-11 associated nosedive. The key is letting the market do the heavy lifting. Many Democrats don't get that.
-
No you don't.
Yes you do. You're just misreading my statement. Put another way, if the flower is considered dead at the point when all the petals fall off and for that particular reason, then that is the demarcation point.
No, he just didn't use it to do his scientific research.If that was the issue then "Guest" should have said that theologians aren't doing theology when they do science.
But that isn't what "Guest" wrote, is it?
-
The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is a series of excuses looking desperately for a justification. Take this display on poisonous frogs. http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/travel/mo...c_2400.jpg.html
According to the Bible, via this display, poison wasn’t poison until Adam and Eve sinned. Then it became poison. You have to be thoroughly gullible to believe that.
Straw man. If you really believe that's what the display meant, then your powers of analysis are close to nil. If you knew better and made the argument anyway then you're dishonest.
-
Every investment is uncertain but without investments in research there is no progress.
Obviously. But investments in research can occur even if it isn't the government doing the investing, and the breakthroughs do not necessarily happen because they were purchased through overwhelming dedication of capital. The bulk of investment takes place after the breakthrough, when investors see the value of the idea and put their money behind it with the reasonable expectation of getting something back (profit).
Obama's plan turns that mode of investment on its head. The investment in this case precedes the breakthrough and is apparently expected to produce the needed breakthroughs.
You're an idiot.We'll see.
-
Do YOU seriously believe Iraq will be US friendly once the $$$ flow stops?
Yes. Your question suggests that you do not, and perhaps I am supposed to assume your answer to my question to you on that basis.
Iraq does not trust Iran. Iraqis are generally Arabs, Iranians are generally Persians. The eight years they spent at war with one another cemented that mistrust. Iraqis now have a general experience with the United States as the fair player in the game, trying to balance the interests of each of Iraq's major factions. The Kurds love us. We allowed the Shiites to assume majority power. We endeavored to institute political protections for the minority Sunnis and encouraged forgiveness for former Baathists. Iraq now has what is probably the closest thing to a representative democracy in the Middle East (not counting Israel but you can count Israel if you want). Currently, Iraqis can look at what is going on in Iran to see what happens when the extremists rule.
Iraq has transformed into our natural Arabic ally in the region. Their culture has moved into step with ours more than for any other Arabic nation.
You can buy a whore, which we did, you can't buy a loyal friend. I believe Iraq will ultimately ally itself with Iran and become a greater threat than ever.The most powerful Shiite cleric in the region has condemned the Iranian regime.
Reconcile that with your prediction. I'll just chuckle in the background.
-
If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?
The same way I know that my flowers have died when the petals fall off.
I don't think you understand the issue. If a flower is dead when the petals fall off, then you have a demarcation criterion establishing the difference between live flowers and dead flowers. So can you identify the analogous borders of science or not? Apparently you intend to get by on bluster.
Just because I can't pinpoint the moment of death doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between life and death.Fine, but that doesn't address the issue. We have "science" with petals still attached, by analogy. Can we have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it dead and also have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it alive? That is the issue that cries to be addressed. You give us avoidance. If you're willing to throw out the science that fails to meet all Popperian criteria, then fine. But I hope you know what you're doing.
Bryan, are you really that stupid, or just incredibly stubborn?Sometimes a false dilemma is also an ad hominem fallacy. Address the issue, brave "Guest."
Yeah, and the Pope studied science and Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. So what?So this is false:
Theologians did not do the research that produced evolutionary theory. Scientists did that.
A person educated in theology (what we call a "theologian") did some of the key research that produced evolutionary theory. A person who knew Darwin's background would have been stupid to make that claim. It's just another example of anti-religious bigotry.
Darwin did his research as a scientist, not a theologian.What did he do, exactly, to stop being a theologian while he did his science? Surely you must know, if you're going to make a claim like that. Did he have a stroke and forget his theological education?
-
Bryan, just because you claim to have demolished every argument you've ever encountered doesn't mean you did.
Where do I claim to have demolished every argument I've ever encountered? Or are you just vying for a Red Herring Award?
And your opinions are hardly humble.Thanks?
-
Bryan, you haven’t learned a damned thing in more than a year. Your arguments are still as ridiculous as they were then.
Well, if you can't address the questions then you might as well engage in personal attacks and fallacious appeals to ridicule.
-
The demarcation problem exists at the margins of science, not spanning the vast chasm between science and creationism. Yet again you try to reduce everything to a simplistic category without looking at the substance of what you're trying to address.
If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?
They don't just diverge in their presuppositions. They also diverge in their methods. Theologians did not do the research that produced evolutionary theory. Scientists did that.On both accounts, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.
So your irony was intentional?
Charles Darwin studied theology in school.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300136081
1828 – 1831: Attended and graduated from Cambridge University, intending to become a clergyman.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gyJ4_T...=clnk&gl=us
You Guests are great. Really.
-
I thought I already did that by agreeing that Clinton deserves some credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s. But you have wholly failed to acknowledge any of the differences between Clinton policy and Obama policy, not to mention the many differences that I did not bother to add to the list.
Obama has been in office 3 and 1/2 months! How can you say there are "many differences" in that short a period?
Uh, because there are many difference? What other reason would I need????
There were many "differences" on what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992 and what he did from 1993 to 2000.Yes, there were, but maybe not as many as you think. Like Obama, Clinton actually ran a fairly centrist campaign. He advocated Welfare reform as part of his campaign, for example. The form Welfare reform eventually took angered many Democrats, but that never stopped Clinton from taking credit for it--and since he had campaigned on it he was entitled to some of the credit even though it probably wouldn't have happened unless it was also an aim of the GOP-controlled Congress. To to put a point on it, I've already been over the fact that Clinton was steered toward the middle by Congress. The big difference right now between Obama and Clinton is that Obama has had great success enacting his early policy ideas. And Obama's policy ideas are far different from those that resulted in the 1990s economy. They are more different than they are alike. Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Obama has tended toward protectionism and even campaigned on a unilateral reworking of NAFTA.
You don't think that's the only policy from Clinton that had anything to do with the economy, do you? I pointed out that Clinton dropped the capital gains tax rate by 8 percent. You have no comment on that, nor do you note that the income tax rate hike you're lauding essentially created a new bracket after its first year of implementation (initially applied at the $80,000-90,000 range, then was upped to $250,000). The greatest economic growth under Clinton occurred after the drop in the capital gains rate. Obama wants to raise that rate considerably. That is the opposite of Clinton's policy. If you ignore the very substantial policy differences between Clinton and Obama then you end up sending a hint that you're not interested in honest discussion.Here are facts and honesty for you:
George Bush lowered the long-term capital gains tax rate to 15%. We now have the greatest deficit in the history of this country and the greatest recession since the Great Depression. So where is the causal connection with the capital gains tax rate (of either 15% or 20% or 28%) and the economy?
It probably lowered tax revenue and helped sustain the economy. But the capital gains tax rate cut is only a small part of the deficit. You know that, but make the argument anyway. And that's your version of honesty?
Obama wants to return capital gains tax rates for the highest earners to the the levels under the Clinton Administration. If as you said the Clinton capital gains tax rates were a good thing, then your criticism perplexes me.Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive.
That's very easy to do. The federal budget is a bigger animal now than it has ever been, and the budget surplus was both moderate as a percentage of GDP and reliant on an economy that had been riding the tech bubble. Add to that GWB's willingness to spend on things like federal education bills and a Medicare drug benefit. Plus we could talk about the Bush tax cuts, but that move, ironically, is simply a smaller version of the Keynesian stimulus notion that gave us our trillion dollar stimulus bill from the Democrats. Obama, I think, will show Bush a thing or two about "jobless recovery." Like how to claim economic progress while the unemployment rate rises measurably (Pay no mind to the rising unemployment rate! I just created or saved x jobs!).Here's another cold fact for you: Every single job created during the George W. Bush years was lost in the last 12 months. EVERY single job. That is astonishing. In light of that economic disaster, I'm more than willing to let Obama implement his policies and giving him more than three months before saying his policies don't work.
Verily, you have great faith.
I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls.
-
You're a prime example of a (very) little knowledge being a dangerous thing. You know big words but you don't know how they fit in. Counterexamples aren’t enough when its main thrust is to say that the Bible can be used in place of science.
Is that through the Miracle of the Fallacy of Special Pleading or some similarly wonderful logical artifact?
The mere fact that they accept some science doesn’t mean that they understand scientific method or accept it as the only way of learning about the natural world, which it is.I was told that science questions everything. Does that not count the supposition that science is the only way of learning about the natural world? How could science be so unscientific?
The point has been made repeatedly that you can't solve a math problem by doing the first few steps and fudging the rest. It's a point you have consistently ignored for obvious reasons.Ignored the point? Nonsense. I gave it the space it deserved and moved on. And I'll reiterate and expand the point:
False analogy, since we have many math problems before us rather than one. Though in terms of an overarching TOE I suppose that analogy can still fly ... except that you'd pretty much have to admit that mainstream science has flubbed its equations with regularity.
By all means, keep trying to resurrect the analogy to stave off the criticism. I don't expect you'll end up with what you were aiming for.
You have been told many times why the mere presentation of some facts in a collection of misleading exhibits can be anti-scientific. In this instance, it is.Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong.
Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97181 There have been many others. You didn’t argue against these observations, you just asked questions about them. The links make the point clearly.
I took that post apart in detail here.
And it doesn't really see fair to claim that I did not argue against the observations. I showed, for example, that one of the so-called observations was self-contradictory.
The brave soul responsible for the post you linked did not address my reply, AFAICT.
They don’t present it. They just distort it. This link is an argument for supernaturalist explanations for natural phenomena. It’s an attack on evolution from a non-scientific perspective. One of the questions at the bottom asks why evolution should be taught in the schools but not creationism. There are at least two compelling answers to this question. One is that evolution is science and creationism is not. For a good explanation of this, see http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdfThe Kitzmiller case was far more political theater than philosophy of science.
The other is that creationism doesn’t increase anyone’s fund of knowledge. It can’t be tested or verified, it doesn’t make any useful predictions and it hasn’t contributed a thing to medicine or any other body of science.If it can't be tested or verified then how do you know that it doesn't increase anyone's fund of knowledge? Did you make that determination without any testing or verification?
Evolution meets all those tests with flying colors, which is why scientists are practically universal in their acceptance of it, to such an extent that evolution is identified as the organizing principle for all of biology.Not all of the claims of evolution meet those tests with flying colors, and more to the point the philosophical assumptions underpinning the conclusions are themselves incapable of critical types of testing or verification. It is at the latter stage in particular where your side tends to grow careless in distinguishing science from whatever they suppose is not science.
A related point is that evolutionary theory was developed not because people decided in advance that they wanted to believe it; just the opposite, until the 19th century, virtually no one had ever considered evolution.As Joe Biden might say, "God love ya!"
"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has its roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Arabs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
It is also true that this evolutionary thinking, inspired by the re-examination of the wisdom of the ancients, was popularized well prior to the 19th century. Darwin's theory of natural selection was simply the most successful method of supporting the already-popularized evolutionary thinking.
Don't they teach this stuff in school any longer?
It was developed because that is where the evidence leads.
Partially correct, but the amount of stuff you're leaving out suggest either you don't know much about it or you're trying to mislead others.
By contrast, the only thing “supporting” creationism is that this is what people wish to believe. Of the two, the discovery of evolutionary theory has the far more compelling claim to truth.
Again, you're radically oversimplifying things.
The link whines about various forms of science, and yet by following scientific method, scientists have revolutionized the world. Anyone can make an argument, Bryan, as you prove here every time you write. It is quite another matter to back that argument up with facts. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, have the facts on their side, including a history of progress and development. Theology and creationism have none of that.
But the argument isn't really about evolution versus creationism. It is about what is or isn't anti-science and whether exposure to other ideas such as YEC is enduringly harmful. When you substitute the type of argument you're presenting for the type of argument we ought to be having, one might wonder what motivates the switch.
Bryan, if you would bother reading the links you post, you might see that they don’t support your argument.
I'm quite open to hearing specifics. But I'm not that interested in glib claims that double as personal attacks.
No reputable scientists says that creationism is a substitute for science.
Did I argue otherwise? Feel free to refresh my memory. Until then, I find it difficult to sustain my interest in your writings.
Here’s the essence of your problem. The quotation can be found under the section on Kuhn in your link: “Kuhn instead argued that a new paradigm is accepted mainly because it has a superior ability to solve problems that arise in the process of doing normal science.” Creationism doesn’t solve any problems. Evolutionary theory does, as demonstrated by its numerous applications in medicine and its entry into the study of every dynamic system, including the social sciences.
Great. How is that a problem for me? Be as specific as you are able.
You keep making the same mistake over and over, Bryan.
And what is that supposed mistake? Do tell.
You’re so enamored with your philosophy that you’ve neglected to take a look at the world and see whether anything actually supports your claims. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that without scientific method, there is no science.
Doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is no science if the demarcation problem isn't solved?
You brave anonymous Guests amuse me. You love to point out my supposed problems, but they seem to always turn out to be straw men or the like. Supposedly I haven't deal with the "fact" that without scientific method there is no science. But it is clearly fact that I have introduced the demarcation problem in reply to that supposition, and the demarcation problem has not been addressed by your side. Emphasizing Kuhn's focus on paradigm shifts does not seem quite adequate to sweep that issue under the rug, IMHO.
Though perhaps you can wish differently.
-
Well, Bryan, you are hopelessly, miserably wrong yet again. The necessary interplay between the rigors of daily science and the artistic-like creative spurts of scientific advancement in no way suggests a contradiction. In their daily work, scientists must rigorously apply established methods. Occasionally someone has to step outside the usual parameters or paradigm and do something different, often on a hunch. There is no contradiction. They are two parts of the same thing.
I didn't say anything about a contradiction. Would you like some help stomping down this straw man?
After we're done then maybe you'll consider dealing with what I actually wrote instead of the argument that your imagination substituted for my reasoning. Figure out what I really said and then tell me whether I'm wrong or not. Thanks.
-
No it doesn't. It comes down to the fact that young-earth creationists aren't doing science. See the below.
Below where ... you respond to the same statement from me but with different words? Are you suffering from MPD or what?
Then you don't understand science. They're not doing science because they're not following scientific method.I keep hearing your side claim that but without addressing the demarcation problem. You understand the demarcation problem, right? Is that why you keep avoiding it? And then take the easy way out by intimating that I don't understand science?
They are merely taking the conclusions from people who have done the science and claiming that the Bible says the same thing - even though people didn't figure these things out from the Bible but only after science did its work. So not only are they not following scientific method, but they are also ignoring history.We're no longer talking about dinosaurs and the issues where YECs and naturalistic scientists agree. We're talking about where the two diverge as to their presuppositions. Your argument above is completely nonsensical in that context. There is no occasion for "taking the conclusions from people who have done the science" in the present context.
-
But you're not right wing, are you? So why would your refusal to admit you don't know what "implicit" means be "right wing arrogance"?
Your reasoning made no sense with respect to mine unless one supposes you do not/did not know what "implicit" means. So far you've avoided answering as to whether you know what it means.
Bryan, I thought you were better than snarky sarcasm. I'll ignore your pettiness.
That would be fine, if you would at the same time address the lack of evidence that befouls your accusations.
I will re-state the core premise one more time: the Second Circuit and the Ginsburg dissent were in agreement on the lack of intentional discrimination and both focused on disparate impact discrimination.Easy enough to state, I'm sure. Where is Ginsburg's statement to the effect that no intentional discrimination took place?
Why do you think I don't understand that conflict, to rephrase the question above that you failed to answer the first time?Because you have completely ignored the two distinct legal theories of discrimination that came into conflict in the Ricci case. You conflate the two.
I amaze even myself with my ability to both ignore and conflate two distinct legal theories of discrimination (at the same time?). Can you explain the appearance of contradiction in your charge? Better yet, can you give a specific example of it via quotation?
And I failed to note that where noting it would have been important/appropriate where, exactly?Because it's the heart of the Ricci case and you can't criticize the Second Circuit's/Sotomayor's position unless you understand the structure of Title VII with respect to the two forms of discrimination.
I don't recall asking you whether it was important to understand the two distinct legal theories of discrimination. I simply asked where I omitted making the distinction where it would be important for me to do so. You haven't addressed that question.
We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret Manual of Professional Prevarication.
When making a false accusation, at all costs avoid getting pinned down to particulars. When asked for specific examples that might support the accusation, just pretend you don't understand the question and repeat the accusation over again. Repeat over again as necessary
-
So, 6 years of a war of choice that's accomplished NOTHING of benefit to the US and you're fine with THAT huge expense while your willing to condemn another program after only a few months?
WHAT a nitwit!
Do you seriously think that having a friendly Iraq as a friendly political and trade partner is of no benefit to the United States? Seriously?
Hoffman Concedes
in Kearny
Posted
1) So does Michael Moore. That doesn't make him a good candidate for the GOP.
2) If the district isn't really all that conservative in the first place then what is the big deal with a Democrat winning it? If you meant all along to imply that NY23 was pretty much a RINO district you could have mentioned that in the OP.
If you can find a national trend in the NY23 race then you can probably find every Roman Catholic saint in Saturday's cloud formations as well--obscured though they are with various puffs of water vapor.