Bryan
-
Posts
1,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bryan
-
-
I'll answer your question by telling you what I've been telling you for two and a half years. There is an attempt by millions of evangelical Christians in the United States (by no means all evangelical Christians) to turn the United States into a theocracy. They came very close to succeeding under Bush, are close to having a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court, and most people are blind to the issue.
Have a look at the religious makeup of the SCOTUS and get an inkling of the type of crackpottery you regularly receive courtesy of Paul LaClair:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
The Protestants are losing Souter. Care to guess the religion of Judge Sotomayor? Another Roman Catholic. Somehow, there's a secret sect of Roman Catholics in league with the evangelicals in trying to take over the government. Fortunately, other Roman Catholics stand in their way.
Ludicrous.
One of the tragic offshoots of this brand of evangelical extremism is the denial of science. This is nothing new in history, only now instead of denying that the Earth revolves around the Sun, some people are denying evolution and modern cosmology.Interesting parallel, since Galileo was a committed Roman Catholic opposed by another set of Roman Catholics (as well as the mainstream science of the day). The Evangelicals didn't even figure in the debate in those days, of course. One might think differently to hear Mr. LaClair rant, however.
In the case at hand, a publicly owned bus is being used to take a 1,500 mile round trip to Kentucky. That involves a significant taxpayer expense that neither the club nor the students is reimbursing to my knowledge, just for wear and tear on the bus alone.To your knowledge, eh? Is that supposed to count for something?
The only reason that the trip did not take place during the school day is that Matthew and I voiced our concerns. It was originally to have begun at 8:00 a.m., requiring the district to hire and pay for a substitute teacher. We are the ones who stopped that. What aggravates us about this, as much as anything else, is that either no one in the school's administration cared about the rather obvious problem or was willing to enforce the rule.What rule, please?
The other thing we put a stop to, temporarily and in a very limited way, was Mr. Paszkiewicz's overreaching. In his own handwriting, he was justifying this trip as a science trip (thus the request for Friday off). This is the same teacher who got himself into trouble over this issue before, and now he gets his wish to take these kids to a "museum" that promotes young-earth creationism. He was also listing himself on the official KHS website as the club's "teacher," and the club was posted on the KHS official site as part of the history department. Both of those overreaches have also been corrected. It is clear to us that Mr. Paszkiewicz will never accept the limitations on his role vis-a-vis this club.So Paszkiewicz runs the school's website? Or am I missing something?
He appears to see it as his, which is contrary to the law - not surprising since he does not agree with the law and has made no secret of his willingness to violate it.Where is that supposed willingness to violate the law clearly expressed in the public record, please?
I understand that people don't want to be bothered with this, but if you live in Kearny, this man is a threat to your wallet every day he represents the school district. He is disaster waiting to happen (again), and if it does, we will have no defense because we are on notice. Put simply, we cannot trust him to abide by the law regarding these issues.So you're saying that he has broken the law relatively recently? Or is there some other evidence that drives us to the conclusion that he cannot be trusted to obey the law?
We do not question the club's right to exist. It has existed for approximately a year and a half with no complaint from us. In fact, I believe I have stated that before, publicly, and wished the club well. It is unfortunate that some people seem to feel a need to accuse us of things we are not doing. The most likely explanation is that they do not wish to see the issue for what it is. If this was a popular position to take, Matthew and I wouldn't be so alone in taking it.I continue to invite the people of Kearny to address this issue. If you're not concerned about science education or church-state separation, then do it to protect your wallets.
Good grief. This guy supported Obama and he wants folks to worry about their wallets because of Paszkiewicz.
We have no defense if Mr. Paszkiewicz puts us in a position of having to defend what could be a very expensive lawsuit. The district spent over $120,000 on legal fees over our issue with Mr. Paszkiewicz before, even though we spent the whole time trying to work it out with them and avoid any expense.Time is money. Trying to work it out costs money, unless you did all the talking as well as any listening that went on.
If the next person to complain is looking for a payday, he or she just might get it. It could cost us millions.Meh. Think of it as economic stimulus.
-
Here is the fundamental problem with Paul's position:
Obviously (I hope), the school would not sanction or condone a club supporting the goals of NAMBLA, since that organization promotes illegal activity. I’m quite certain that a club dedicated to the reading of erotic popular magazines like Playboy would meet with disapproval, too – but on what grounds? The activity is legal. What if the seniors formed a club whose mission was to take every student to a strip club on his or her eighteenth birthday, when it’s legal?I understand that a former principal put the lid on an attempt by some students to form a gay-straight alliance club. He had no business doing that. The club is completely legal, and it furthers an important educational mission of promoting tolerance.
Gay-straight alliance club? That's great, because it promotes tolerance.
Now the erotic readings club ... Paul offers that as an example of, what? Something that should be opposed? Or should it be supported on the same grounds as the gay-straight alliance clubs?
According to Paul, it is an educational duty (to at least some degree) to promote tolerance. And Paul seems to draw the line somewhere in the law. But where? What should be legal and what should not be legal?
Paul faces a dilemma, and he seems enduringly unaware of his problem. Do we follow the law for it's own sake? Or is there something undergirding the law that would make it right?
In the end, Paul is all about political power. He wants to use political power to pursue his own religious agenda. And I expect that the apple fell fairly close to that tree. Paul's aim is to bring the law closer to his own set of values. If you're doing the same thing based on your own set of values and those values differ from Paul's, then you are the enemy. His talk of tolerance will evaporate at that point.
Take him to task on NAMBLA. Should there be a NAMBLA club at public schools to promote tolerance if the activities it promoted were legal? And, when it comes to that, should those activities be legalized to pave the way for the club?
Dig all you like, Paul LaClair has no principled foundation behind his push for political power. He believes in a fantasy of "universal" human ethics where the facts overtly contradict his position (human ethics are not universal). In a nation founded on property rights, human liberty and religious freedom, Paul is pushing to make some exercise of religion illegal, and his principle seems amount to the tyranny of the majority.
He offers you choice between a terrifying theocracy and a type of religious secularism, but the reality is that we have lived with the type of "theocracy" Paul rails about since before the birth of the nation. The nation was founded on a common set of religious principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. You don't get rights from science, and there are differing (ultimately religious/philosophical) views on rights. For most of our history, people did not concern themselves over every little offense to religious conscience. But with time and plenty of help from lawyers, we are near the point to reducing our Constitution to the absurd, for it is based on the aforementioned religious principles and often promotes beliefs contrary to the beliefs of at least some. And the majority can generally makes its preferences legal.
Before taking Paul's recommendations too seriously, think about where his road leads. And try to ferret out some of the inevitable unintended consequences.
-
We’re still dealing with this in Kearny. The latest edition of the KHS student newspaper announces that the Alpha and Omega club is contemplating a trip to the so-called Creation Museum. It is no coincidence that the club’s “adviser” is Mr. Paszkiewicz. I hope they aren’t planning on spending a single dime of taxpayer money on this.
Have you reason to think taxpayer money was used for the trip?
In any case, I do not believe that young-earth creationism represents the views of the majority of Kearny’s Christians. So why are you silent? This is a threat to the education of your children.Is it? Why? I'm not a young-earth creationist but I don't regard it as a threat to education.
If we want our kids to understand science, this is an intolerable situation.So anyone (or at least LaClair's kids?) who goes to the museum will automatically fail to understand science? That must be quite a museum.
There is very little doubt that a certain teacher is still pushing his views. Having escaped termination or any meaningful sanction, he is now emboldened to push the envelope further.Hmm. I seem to remember Mr. LaClair proclaiming that he got what he wanted with his earlier lawsuit. Now, however, the supposed failure to get a teacher fired or to secure any meaningful sanction (was meaninful sanction not one of the original goals of the suit?), we find somebody pushing the envelope.
Plainly put, his views on this subject are ignorant. I know that from what I heard when he was recorded expounding on this subject.I seem to recall that Mr. LaClair expressed ignorant views regarding science.
Evolution is an established scientific fact, based on more than a century of scientific research and data collection. Calling it a pre-conceived idea is dishonest.Historically speaking, evolution as an idea preceded the theory of evolution. We may infer that calling calling it a preconceived idea is dishonest.
Equally to the point, it is a part of the mandatory curriculum. It is not up to Mr. Paszkiewicz, or any other teacher, to ignore the law. Yet the law is regularly being ignored because we allow a few radicals to protest the teaching of established science. If we care about our children’s education, we cannot allow this to continue.What do you propose to do about it, short of lobbying to remove the constitutional protections of peaceful protest?
Because the Alpha and Omega club is within the law’s guidelines by outward appearances, its operations are legal.Rankles you, does it?
However, I wonder what really goes on in those meetings. I hope that I am not the only Kearny citizen who is concerned about this. There can be no doubt that a school-sanctioned club is being used to promote scientific ignorance. This affects the education of all our students and adversely affects our town.How does it supposedly affect the education of "all our students"?
Perhaps the wishes of the parents whose students attend the club should be paramount rather than the wishes of a person who despises the club?
Meanwhile, here are some videos that make more sense and offer a little more hope:With all due respect to Penn and Teller's abilities as entertainers, it is not accurate to portray "intelligent design" as stemming from fables. Intelligent design is a logical inference with which one might agree or disagree. One of the ill results of the Dover case, apparently, is the manner in which it facilitated the equivocation between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design. The latter is compatible with common descent. If LaClair is aware of that then he has little excuse for providing such a misleading link. I certainly hope that he is not planning on using taxpayer money for this ... after all, arguing straw men affects all our children's education.
-
The report does not necessarily reflect the views of the committee.
The report was released to the public by a unanimous vote. That isn't at all the same as accepting its conclusions, despite the poor reporting coming from some media sources.
And from irresponsible posters on Internet message boards, of course.
-
IF the problems left behind by Clinton were as glaringly obvious as alleged, what's equally glaringly obvious is that they were ignored by the Shrub administration while they pursued apersonal agenda.
That doesn't follow, for it is simply a logistical impossibility to alter the practices of the executive branch overnight. Each branch has its own inertia and even its own ideology to some degree. The Bush administration argued that it was trying for a more comprehensive way of combating terrorism, and that's a plausible argument. It isn't surprising given the bureaucratic complexity of the executive branch that it would take time to get the tanker to change course.
THAT's a total FAILURE to protect the American people that should be placed squarely on the shoulders of one mis-leader-----George Walker Bush, The Dumbya hisself.You're irrationally denying Clinton's responsibility in establishing the course of the tanker during an administration that oversaw a number of significant terrorist attacks and sinking to the level of calling names.
Just in case I need to point that out.
-
Apparently, among the multitude of FACTS you are ignorant of, your tunnel vision makes you ignorant of the easily verified fact of who the POTUS was on 9/11/01. You know, the guy who's supposed to protect the US? What a blind nitwit of a sheep you are.
Right. I did not and still do not realize that Bush was president on Sept. 11, 2001 because of what a blind nitwit of a sheep I am.
Your type will do anything to distract from the proof that Bern gave us, apparently. I very plainly allowed that Bush is not free from fault. You ignored that as well as the proof that Bern provided regarding the failures of the Clinton administration. Ba-ba-baaaaa.
-
An explicit warning came on Bush's watch, just a few weeks before 9/11.
Yeah? What was it? Point us to your source.
-
Let's move on to 2001 and.............
Just WHO ignored the warnings?
Just WHO FAILED in his primary duty of protecting Americans?
I know you have difficulty with facing reality so here's a hint:
IT WAS NOT CLINTON!
It was Clinton, and Bern proved it. Unfortunately the miasma of Bush hatred swimming in your eyes keeps you from seeing it. If you went back and researched it, you'd see that a good number of the warnings that were supposed to tip Bush off about 9-11 dated well back into the Clinton administration (timely, eh?). Bush is not without blame--but he shares it with Clinton. That's just the truth. If you can't accept it then you've got a problem.
-
Excellent work. "At the top" in 2000 meant the Clinton administration, of course.
-
I've researched this claim that Bush was warned of an "imminent attack". The truth is that there were vague reports from various
intelligence sources that Bin Laden was planning an attack sometime in the future. However, there was no information on where, when or how.
The CIA and FBI (still recovering from budget cuts under Clinton) were unable to develop any specific intelligence on this alleged plan. The
blame for 9/11 has to lie with Clinton however. Under his administration, he prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence with each other
(God knows why) and he cut the budgets of both agencies. It took both agencies a full 2 years to get back up to speed once Bush restored their
budgets. The plans for 9/11 were underway for a full 3 years of the Clinton administration but in their reduced capacities, the CIA and FBI were
unable to develop any intelligence on them. The 8 months Bush was in office before 9/11 was not nearly enough time to correct 8 years of
Clinton neglect of our security agencies.
The CIA and the FBI did not share information because government agencies compete with one another for influence and budget. An increase in the budget of one agency shrinks the pie for the others. It's a well-known phenomenon applying to bureaucracies and understood as applying to federal government operations. Jamie Gorelick, who (somewhat astoundingly) sat on the 9/11 Commission was instrumental in keeping the informational wall intact under the Clinton administration.
That said, if it's fair to fault the Clinton administration for its failures regarding the response to terrorism it is fair to fault every pre-9/11 president for failures--going from Carter to Bush without any exception. But I agree that the post-9/11 Bush at least deserves credit for making some pro-active and positive changes. The fact is that the U.S. has not suffered any domestic attack of any note since 9/11. A good number of planned attacks have been foiled and Al Qaeda has suffered a prolonged public relations failure.
-
lol, stupid little liar. Bush completely ignored the memo that said Bin Laden was determined to strike America, and that he was probably going to use planes as missiles. Tell the 3,000 corpses created on 9/11 that Bush protected them from terrorists, punk.
You appear to have engage in bald-faced lying, brave anonymous Guest.
What memo suggested that Bin Laden was probably going to use planes as missiles?
Then there's the inconvenient truth that Iraq had no Al Qaeda in it UNTIL Bush invaded. There are more terrorists who want to kill us now than there were before 9/11, all thanks to the Bush administration.That's not an inconvenient truth. There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion (though not necessarily affiliated with Al Qaeda), and Richard Clarke (remember him?) famously suggested that Bin Laden might "boogie to Baghdad" after being flushed from Afghanistan.
-
1. Larry has never claimed to be of any party. He simply reports of happenings in the VA. He doesn't invent the stories. And the part of his site that references votes concerning Veteran Issues are true and accurately reflected.
Larry has never claimed to be of any party? Is he your dad or something? How well do you know the guy?
FYI not claiming party affiliation does not necessarily indicate non-partisanship. Or did you already know that and lead your argument off with that point anyway?
You appeared to use the assurance that the site was non-partisan as the assurance to readers that the site was true and accurately reflected reality. Have we come full circle in just two steps?
2. Paul is a person who expresses opinions that many people agree with and several don't. He is articulate and expresses his views. Simply beause he doesn't use blogs in all of his references doesn't make him wrong. And, he is teaching his son to fight for what he believes is wrong. Many don't share that view becaue it doesn't fit their particular view point.Nice dance, there. Paul was wrong about the targeted oil company boycott. Even if he had been able to find a "blog" to support him he would have been wrong.
I am the type of person that looks at what people say on this sight and who they quote as a source. If I don't agree with them, I use various websites that link to the Government like the Congress and Senate or Thomas.gov.So you knew that Paul was full of it when he advocated the targeted boycott? Why didn't you pipe up sooner?
I use ask.com because I find it easier to get the information. Also, I will link to the Supreme Court periodically to see what cases are pending if there is a particular issue on this site like the Mt. Soledad case. I don't particularly us blogs as a reference because I find that depending on which one a person sites as I said depends on the persons view and who is funding them. If you notice, I don't always respond to everything you say because if I can't find information that is opposite of what you say than I can't criticize you.I haven't been keeping track of the posts of mine that you have read but haven't bothered to challenge, FWIW.
Do you see any problem at all with the voting record presentation that Larry reproduced, or do you think it speaks accurately for itself?
With regards to your last comment, I would ask you the same question. Have you ever offerred me an apology. It works both ways.What do you suggest I should apologize to you over? At least I had the courtesy to provide an example for your consideration. Should I apologize for overlooking the fact that you don't always find something to disagree with in my posts?
-
He doesn't make up the voting records of the Congress and Senate.
No, and he doesn't even report on them personally. He just borrows reporting from elsewhere.
So it doesn't matter what his name is. The facts are what they are.You skipped some questions (probably just to prove you're not ducking anything?).
Why do you think Larry is non-partisan?
Which type of person is Paul, given that he blurted out that brilliant targeted boycott plan without running it by Snopes.com or some other investigatory process?
Which type of person are you, given that you go to (and recommend) a tertiary source for voting record information?
And here's a new one:
Have you considered apologizing for taking my comment out of context?
-
I noticed on page 2 that someone had used proud american in a response. For clarification purposes, this was not me.
To have Bryan claim that Paul doesn't know his facts is incredibly idiotic.
Well, perhaps you should consider accurately representing my claim. The claim I made is perfectly defensible considering LaClair blunders such as his recommendation of a targeted oil boycott.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=55972
His suggestion reflects an ignorance of an economic issue (oil economy) and he's going to vote partially based on that understanding (such as it is). He could have cleared up his misconception with a bit of research, as I pointed out at the time.
Here's what I wrote, since you're having trouble representing it accurately:
Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO).
As many of you are aware, there are two types of people who blog on this sight.Those who get their information from blogs tend to use the ones that fit their agenda and then there are those who actually research the issues. Paul is an attorney and I'm not. Yet I was able to get the same information that proved Patriot wrong about the Mt. Soledad issue by simply researching using Thomas.gov and going to the Supreme Court website.
Likewise, I was able to show (using the much-respected Snopes.com) that the targeted oil boycott idea is bunkum. Paul, on the other hand, made the suggestion without apparently researching it. Which kind of person is Paul and why?
How many out there even have a clue as to how John Mc Cain votes on Veterans issues. Most would believe that he stands behind every Veteran. Well, in truth, both Clinton and Obama have a better voting record when it comes to Veterans than most Republicans. If you don't believe me go to www.vawatchdog.org and see for yourself. It lists the voting record of every Senator and Congressman on veteran issues. Also it is a non partisan website.Didn't I already point out that va watchdog is basically Larry Scott? And what makes you think it is non-partisan?
Another question: If good research involves going to the source then why are we going through va watchdog for information gathered by Project Vote Smart from various special interest groups? Which of the two kinds of people are you, again?
-
I said "out sourcing everthing" I did not say that we shouldn't out source anything at all. I fully realize the implications of protectionism, the problem is that I didn't say that.
Stay as vague as possible, then.
-
Maybe while were are at it we could quit outsourcing everything to China and India?
Trade is an overall good, and labor is a traded commodity.
I don't think you realize the implications of the protectionism you're implicitly advocating, Keith.
-
Let's move the discussion on the Pledge of Allegiance here, and broaden it to the topic of citizenship, which is what this is really all about.
Between voting and reciting the Pledge, which is the more important?
Why?
It all depends.
One could have a meaningful reminder of one's position as a citizen by reciting the pledge. And one might vote for Osama bin Laden as a write-in candidate on election day. Or a terrorist might recite the pledge as part of his cover while a Libertarian sincerely aligns with his party by voting for Bob Barr, a candidate who cannot possibly win the presidency.
Does our behavior,(a.) as participants in our democratic system and
(b.) in our reactions to our fellow citizens,
reflect what we say our values are?
Hopefully.
If 100% of all the people in Yankee Stadium or Giant Stadium are standing for the national anthem, but only 50-60% of them vote, even in presidential elections, what does that say about us as a nation, a people and a culture?Not much.
Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO).
In particular, what does it tell us about which aspects of citizenship could stand improvement?Again, not much. As the nation ages, things only get more complicated and the media do a poor job of explaining them. Many sense that the media are failing in their role (some sense it in a more accurate way than others) and therefore justifiably disregard much of what is reported.
Is it possible for a nation to place too much emphasis on outward displays?Such as voting just to say one has voted? Definitely.
If so, how can we tell when that is happening, and what should we do about it?Hook electrodes to everyone's brain and monitor their thoughts? Make voting mandatory?
Seriously, just inform yourself and inform others. Though of course if your understanding is poor you can simply aggravate the problem.
How much room does each person have in a free society to chart his own course, especially on matters of symbolic expression?Ask the courts, not the legislature.
What can we learn about ourselves, our attitudes and our prejudices by considering these two examples, both of which are associated with citizenship?Moreover, what can we learn about Paul's attitudes and prejudices from threads like this one?
-
Please, oh wise one, explain how any of these:
actually addresses what I said. They comment on me, not my opinion.
Do I need to lead you by the hand to the dictionary definition of "reductio ad absurdum" or something?
I explained it.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=86122
You didn't get it, and you still don't get it.
I note that you left out this part of my post:Typical troll tactic.
You're correct. Pursuing an irrelevancy as you did (engaging in an absurdity instead of a reductio ad absurdum) is a typical troll tactic. Leaving irrelevancies out of a reply is simply proper message board etiquette. But I think we can cut you a break since your trollish reaction appears to stem from the fact that you don't get it.
-
Every responsible economist will tell you that the price of gas in the USA is too low for our own good. The fact that you can't sell it politically doesn't mean it isn't so.
Since higher energy prices will make everything more expensive and potentially spur an inflation spiral, I'd like to see you cite a few of those responsible economists.
Could it be that "responsible economist"="politically liberal"/"environmentally concerned"?
-
I note you won't respond to my actual response to your post in the other thread, troll. But feel free to think your pathetic confirmation bias indicates intelligence. You're such a brilliant troll, after all!
Heh. All you did in your reply was confirm what you've re-confirmed in this thread: You didn't get it:
Three weeks and that's what you come up with? Obviously you aren't objecting to anything I said, you're making an ad hominem in a passive-aggressive manner. You don't even directly address anything I said.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85834
So since you've got nothing, there's not much left for you to do but throw the "troll" label around a bit. Nice work, Autonomouse.
-
Of course it's hard to do. So was building the interstate highway system and winning World War II. But it's necessary.
The hilarious thing is the talk of implementing that policy when the economy is the most important thing to the electorate.
Oil, meet water. Matter, meet antimatter.
It doesn't add up. Cutting consumption of the most efficient means of energy production means one thing: hampering the economy.
-
According to your graph, China's oil consumption doubled from 1991 to 2001, and we had cheap gas. From 2001 to 2005, China's consumption went up 50%, and the price doubled if you compare Dec 2001 and Dec 2005 gas prices.
Right, but China was an net exporter of oil until the mid 1990s.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/
When China's use of oil doubles as a net importer of oil, the difference is as between night and day in terms of its effect on supply and demand.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/
Leaving aside the fact that there are other nations involved besides China, of course.
The current gas run up has more to do with Bush's housing bubble and the need to drop interest rates, even if it trashes our dollar.You mean Clinton's housing bubble, I believe (Clinton being the guy who put pressure on lenders to lower lending standards for home buyers, thus increasing demand for houses (^ price) and leading to an increasing rate of default (damaging subprime lending market).
You can almost graph point for point drops in the interest rates and the rising price of oil, and OPEC itself admits this is the cause. To tie high gas prices to a working surge seems extremely tenuous. I'm willing to listen if you can strengthen your argument.I'm not sure what argument you're talking about. I'm suggesting that the success of the surge will tend to make fuel prices sink over the long term. Rather than strengthen a straw man I'd rather help you rip him to shreds and trample the remains.
Say what you will about Clinton's tech "bubble", the overall market came out very much in the black even during the bottom of that rollercoaster. Whatever gain might have been seen in the housing market has been completely wiped out, and we're not done. For Bush to match Clinton's economy, the DOW would have to be above 20,000. And he had a very cooperative Republican congress to work with. I guess he's still got 7 months to do it.The DOW is not a measure of the economy per se. It is a measure of the value of businesses.
If Clinton inherited an economic windfall through peace time, what does that say about Bush 43 going into war?It says nothing about the war, really.
It says that more of our GDP will be devoted to the war effort, by percentage, than when the military is being reduced. The real key with respect to the economy is the manner in which the war changes the economic landscape other than in terms of military expenditure. Take Japan's invasion of Manchuria, for example. Japan had to pay for the military effort in Manchuria, but the aim from the start was to secure a protected market for Japanese goods to help Japan weather the worldwide economic depression of the time.
If Clinton's economy benefitted from cutting welfare programs, what does it say about Bush's bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and tax cuts for those who don't need them? Especially in a time of war.Nothing, really, though it appears that you mightily wish that they did say something.
1) Cutting welfare was, in particular, the strangulation of a self-perpetuating entitlement program. The self-perpetuating nature of the program was radically reduced through legislation. Props to Clinton for cooperating with the GOP on that one.
2) By "bank bailouts" apparently you refer to the reduction of interest rates (the rate the Fed charges banks) and the brokering of the Bear-Stearns buyout by another private company. In this case, putting the safety net under Bear-Stearns probably did much to avert a potential economic meltdown caused by the loss of public confidence in the money system. That's the sort of the thing the Fed was designed to do.
3) What oil subsidies? Are tax breaks supposed to count as subsidies?
Not really sure why you won't admit Bush trashed our economy. What truth am I missing?The fact that the economy remains strong along with the fact that economies run in cycles along with the fact that presidents don't actually affect the economy all that much in the first place.
And Clinton didn't cut back the military.Yes he did.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/i...pending_GDP.GIF
Most of his defense FY allocations grew with each succeeding year, reversing the cutbacks that Reagan began and Bush 41 continued.You don't know what you're talking about. It's true that George H. W. Bush passed diminishing defense budgets, but the rationale was the same as for the later cuts: The Cold War was over.
Clinton did not inherit a growing economy. Why do you think Bush 41 lost a second term?
Yes, Clinton inherited a growing economy. Clinton beat George H. W. Bush because the latter was a poor communicator (including fallout from "No new taxes"), and the press did not give Bush credit for the improving economy. Ross Perot's participation also probably hurt Bush (Perot did rob voters from both parties).
Top line for GDP shows economic growth (GDP) for every quarter in the two years leading to Clinton taking office:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
Top line for percentage growth shows growth in GDP by percentage (compared to preceding quarter):
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableV...08&Freq=Qtr
The oil game is pretty simple. If you fix the supply, the price goes up. OPEC knows this, and so do our oil companies.
And BP (Britain), Citgo (Venezuela), Fina (France), Shell (Netherlands) are all in on the game. Gotcha.
Oil is a global market. It's not easy to fix the supply or the price when you're competing with companies based in other countries. Fina doesn't necessarily want Amoco to succeed. And compared to nations where fuel is not directly subsidized by the government, prices in the U.S. are lower than in other nations (did you check prices in Italy lately?). Consider the 1990s, when OPEC was pumping plenty of oil. Gas prices stayed low along with profits. Did the companies forget how to regulate the supply or was Clinton such a spectacular watchdog that they knew they'd never get away with it (despite the Republican Congress).
It also helps that oil companies stifle competition with their mergers. Basic supply and demand obviously applies here, but not quite as simply as you put it. Why shouldn't we limit how they stack the game, if it helps the overall economy?
Some regulation is appropriate. What do you propose? What would help the overall economy, in your opinion?
You think the middle east is stable?
By historical standards, yes. Iran needs to be confronted in Lebanon and in Iraq. Checking Iran in those places potentially establishes a stable balance of power. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then the balance changes and instability will increase. Currently Obama's campaign can't seem to figure out if he meant it or not when he said he would meet with the Iranians without preconditions.
You bring up Saddam's nuclear "program" when even Bush mocked himself at a press correspondence dinner over the subject?Yes. You don't have a serious reply, do you?
I noted that Iran has probably been working on a nuclear program from the time Hussein started on his. There is no question at all that Hussein had a relatively advanced nuclear program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html
You find oil ties of Bush, Cheney, and Rice utterly uninteresting with regards to this topic, while looking at Clinton and Obama's book profits for answers?
Oh, no. I'm quite interested in any relevant ties you can bring up. Are you having trouble thinking of one? Is that why you needed the delaying tactic of pretending to misunderstand my statement?
There just isn't any cohesion in your arguments, and I don't see why there is such loyalty to this ideology.
It's because of the elegant cohesion of the arguments, which you somehow seen unable to appreciate while you try to understand oil demand simply in terms of China's consumption (for example). What a laugh.
Do you enjoy high oil prices? Hell, even shareholders of ExxonMobil and Halliburton heavily question the decisions of their boards. Why shouldn't the rest of us? (Disclosure: I own and have owned plenty of oil stocks outright of in funds.)
If you don't like a company's practices as a shareholder, then complain and act as a shareholder.
If you don't like a company's practices as a customer, patronize a different company.
It's not that difficult, is it?
-
Modest as ever. If you read my reply you'd realize there's no sour grapes-just vast amounts of amusement.
I'd have to read your post uncharitably to believe that you failed to understand how your argument was brought low by the reductio ad absurdum.
If you were merely amused instead of airing sour grapes it speaks poorly of your intelligence. But I'll take your word for it, if you insist.
-
LOL! Fifty state sweep! ROFL!
You do realize that those "Obama/Clinton vs. McCain" polls ALREADY FACTOR IN the possibility of the Democrat they don't want getting the nomination, right? Imbecile: any Hillary supporter polled in an "Obama vs. McCain" poll has already made their voice clear--the "virtual tie" is AFTER that is taken into account, stupid.
A mere fifty states, eh?
If Obama sweeps, I'll bet he takes all 58 (contiguous) states.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/0...than-50-states/
The critical importance of teaching evolution
in Kearny
Posted
Do I need to point out again that the UK has a state-sponsored religion (Church of England)?
How many atheists are suffering in that dreaded theocracy?
Recall that Mr. LaClair was using scare tactics to make people fear a theocracy. What, precisely, are we supposed to fear?
Is it? The field trip was for a voluntary club, not part of the curriculum. Do you see that distinction as unimportant? More importantly, would the law see the distinction as important?
Whatever you say. I'm just curious about the evidence everyone is using to justify their view of Paszkiewicz. I'm not impressed with your justification. Have you anything else, up to and including an attempt to address my criticism of your stated example for alleging that Paszkiewicz broke the law?
Please pardon me for asking for evidence. "Everyone knows it" just doesn't cut it with me. Sorry.