I agree, his statement was muddled, as Bush is who led us down the drain.
Ok, you got me there. It’s simply not good policy to spend money you don’t have on a consistent basis. The last phrase of my quote was to imply that Republicans don’t want to take a leadership position to convince the electorate of how dangerous this is. Those who do show some leadership can headway, but most simply take the path of least resistance and give the people what they want rather than what they need.
Did I connect you to Dubya in one of my posts?
It wasn’t Bush who created more debt in a few years than all previous administrations combined.
Well it aint conservatives taking degrees in conflict studies, women’s issue, basket weaving and such.
A claim well-founded, apparently. See page 6.
Keep in mind that Bush won, but 55% of students supported Kerry. That education majors supported Bush is a surprise, but the rest is exactly what I said. You get more lefties in the soft disciplines and fewer in science and business.
I counted 18 European countries that had a better infant mortality rate and 4 that had a higher life expectancy.
That’s a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because felons support Democrats that Democrats support crime. Wanting to reduce crime does not dictate that Republicans are more likely to feel empathetic to the victim nor the felon, it could be done in order for the Republican to be less likely to be a victim of crime. It’s not that it isn’t a valid reason, it just doesn’t support your premise that Republicans have greater or equivalent emotional intelligence. I’d say that the theoretical framework of the “Just World Hypothesis” is the more likely cause felons support Democrats: as Democrats are less likely to believe that bad things happen to bad people, they’d focus on the situational causes of crime, rather than holding a dispositional view of criminals.
The methodological flaws of such studies are exposed in “The Mismeasure of Man” by Gould.
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University was the latest in a series that determined that Fox News viewers were less informed about independently verifiable facts than viewers of any other news network. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only news network that has been taken to court over their right to lie and misinform viewers.
That said, do you have a cite of someone saying that Sun News ought to be shut down? What, precisely, is wrong with Al-Jazeera?
Christ in the Gospels gives fairly unambiguous, consistent, repeat instructions to give all possessions to the poor. He also claims that a poor individual putting all of their wealth in the coffers gave more than a rich individual giving more wealth, but a lower proportion of their total wealth.
Not to mention one good way to reduce debt is by paying taxes.
I forgot to address your ACLU claim. Here are instances of the ACLU defending free expression of religion. I can’t determine if there is equivalence, though it would be a fallacy of equivocation to expect one any way (something that you accused Yog of actually).
Edit: Ah, I meant that the rich individual is giving a lower proportion of their total wealth.
Double Edit: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, with the dissent mostly coming from economic rather than scientific sources (though economists such as Stern have compiled a report in its favour). The wiki I linked has several scientific papers you may want to peruse.
Effective tax rates and share of tax load 2007:
All Federal Taxes (A)
Individual Income Taxes (I)
Average Tax Rate
Quintile:
1: A 4% I -6.8%
2: A 10.6% I -0.4%
3: A 14.3% I 3.3%
4: A 17.4% I 6.2%
5: A 25.1% I 14.4%%
Top 1%: A 29.5% I 19%
Share of Tax Liabilities
1: A 0.8% I -3%
2: A 4.4% I -0.3%
3: A 9.2% I 4.6%
4: A 16.5% I 12.7%
5: A 68.9% I 86%
Top 1%: A 28.1% I 39.5%
That’s just not fair, quoting actual statistics. You didn’t even misquote or better yet, misquote an already deceptive study from Harvard. Liberals are far too smart to fall for statistics that prove their isolated, incomplete anecdotal evidence mean nothing. They just know things, because they feel it. 
But seriously and back on topic:
The race factor has been brought up. Often, when a conservative brings up IQ or Bell Curve (even when they simply mean “normal distribution”), liberals are the first to start screaming “RACIST!” Did the people who conduct these studies forget that, forget the racial makeup of different states, or were they counting on both to skew the results the direction they wanted from the start?
SAT Scores 2011:
1 Illinois 1807 5%
2 Minnesota 1778 7%
3 Iowa 1777 3%
4 Wisconsin 1767 5%
5 Missouri 1764 5%
46 Florida 1447 64%
47 Texas 1446 58%
48 Georgia 1445 80%
49 South Carolina 1436 70%
50 Maine 1391 93%
51 District of Columbia 1385 79%
(I have to keep reminding myself that 1300/1600=1950/2400)
Well, that certainly appears to prove something, unless you have a clue. Clue: See those percentages in bold. They are the participation rate. Five percent of students in Illinois scored considerably better than ninety three percent of students in Maine. I’d be willing to bet that five percent of students in Maine scored considerably better than the other eighty eight percent of students in Maine. Again, how could the researchers not know that?
I was referring specifically to the scripture (Mark 12:41-44). That said, the top tax bracket is probably sacrificing less when considering things like quality of life indicators. The top tax bracket also doesn’t begin to approach the levels of the Eisenhower administration where there was GDP growth.
From 1953 to 1961, the total US GDP increased 8.22%, and per capita GDP 12.86%.
From 2001 to 2008, the total US GDP increased 8.32%, and per capita GDP 20.72%.
Clarification: The above numbers are in constant 2005 dollars.
Total growth not adjusting for inflation or population growth:
Eisenhower 43.6%
Bush 39.7%
(I thought there was supposed to be an “edit” button)
I apologize
Another correction:
From 1953 to 1961, the per capita in constant 2005$ GDP 8.22%, and whatever’s in column 2 12.86%.
From 2001 to 2008, the per capita in constant 2005$ GDP 8.32%, and whatever’s in column 2 20.72%.
I have no idea what column 2 in the .csv I downloaded from here is. :smack: They’re labelled: 1:“GDP-US $ billion” and 2:“Total Spending-total $2005 per cap”? The list on the site only has numbers in one column.
Edit:Now this one has an “edit” button. The others still don’t?
ABraut you can only edit for a few minutes after making a post in certain forums.
Sorry, my post wasn’t very clear: I didn’t mean to imply that high taxation and government expenditure stimulates domestic growth, I meant that high taxation isn’t necessarily the sole factor in causing economic decline (though perhaps the consequences of Eisenhower’s policies were only felt in later administrations). Thus if debt is an issue it may not be necessary to reduce social services: just increase the rate of taxation above the rate of growth of social services (or reduce the rate of growth of social services) and disincentivise tax avoidance or evasion.
There may be a Utilitarian argument that tipping onto the wrong side of the Laffer curve is justifiable, where growth is slowed and less revenue is collected… Under the condition that social services still receive a greater proportion of funds than otherwise. The two premises are that one holds roughly Utilitarian principles (both Nozick and Marx criticised them) and that there is a commensurate increase in measurable quality of life on average.
Akh, overlooked this, sorry:
I don’t understand the requirements I’m afraid. The Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage is largely a patriarchal event where stewardship of the woman is transferred from the father to a husband. There are many other expressions of love between couples that resemble lifelong contracts that developed independently and do not share the same nomenclature. For example, Biblical “marriage” did not use the term “marriage” since it is derived from Latin. I don’t think the semantic difference invalidates the marriage between Rebekah and Isaac for instance.
According to who, and are you sure it isn’t just a methodological discrepancy, at least with respect to infant mortality rates? Heck, we are at one tenth the world average and in the same ball-park as the others as listed so we are all doing pretty good as listed. The same cannot be said about the respective economies.
As far as life expectancy is concerned, my guess would be industrial accidents (we are a resource based economy) and heart disease (we don’t eat as many greese burgers as Americans, but probably more crap than other OECD countries).
I didn’t say they support crime, but it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they enable it.
Granted.
But go back to my original point:
Felons have low EI
Felons are Democrats
Democrats have lower EI (ceteris paribus)
Damn near a straight syllogism that Aristotle himself could have come up with.
Yes, yes, and they invent grandiose terms like “fundamental attribution error” which, ultimately, strip people of personal responsibility.
I know of it, but have not read it yet. It’s cited in other books I’ve read on IQ but maybe there is a section that goes into other areas that you are referring to.
It’s late here so I will have to get back to you about Fox viewers and so-called “independently verifiable facts”. The one such study I looked at some time ago was nothing of the sort; it simply compared Fox viewers’ **opinions **with other **opinons **of specifically selected pundits. No facts were involved in that study; I’m not sure if you are trying to cite the same one now.
I will find it (only because I assume you are American and were not paying attention), but there was even some organization funded by George Soros trying to block their broadcast license.
You don’t think maybe Al-Jazeera is just a bit biased towards Islam and it’s proponents and against it’s various enemies in the west?
I believe in the principle of progressive taxation, so you can lay off quacking that duck for a bit.
The fact is that conservatives and religions people in particular are more generous with their disposable income than secularists, despite being under the same tax regime. Jesus emphasized personal charity rather than government-controlled, forced redistributions of wealth.
That’s the thing: it’s **not **a mere matter of semantics but a conceptual difference between heterosexual and homosexual pair bonding.
Etymologically, “marriage” goes back to Old French and ultimately back to Latin. As an English word it has only been around since about the 13th or 14th century. But the concept has been around, and it was always different, conceptually, for homosexuals to pair-bond.
However, the nature of law is that words should match concepts and the trick is to say bibbity-bobbity-boo and make homosexual unions the same as marriage. At best, it is a legal fiction in the way that a corporation is a person. Sure, for most legal purposes it is treated as a person, but a corporation most certainly is not the same thing as a person, which is why a new term had to develop: natural person.
It doesn’t matter what the concept of marriage was limited to throughout human history. What matters is that we as a society no longer consider it just to adhere to those limitations in the face of same sex couples who wish the same civil status.
We do the same with other issues of equality – slavery was once accepted, debtors prison was once accepted, denying the franchise to all but landed white men was once accepted, segregation was once accepted, state religion is still accepted in many parts of the world.
Part of the character of America is whenever someone steps up and says that “traditional” restrictions are unjustifiably limiting his or her life, we look at it rationally and say, “You know what? Screw tradition. Justice is more important.”