Interesting, the way that links can be disguised as simple quote boxes.
Wrap both quote tags with url tag. It then becomes:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13643492&postcount=2741)
Sometimes the entire quote is clickable–but on edit, I’m not sure how to specifically code for that.
By putting the URL tags within the quote tags
If you look at Snowboarder Bo’s post, the entire box is linked, but the text itself isn’t styled as a URL.
Right, I thought you were asking how to get it to show up the other way.
Maureen Dowd reports on a Congressional hearing about allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Apparently, the expense was a key issue. :smack:
Her article has more funnies, e.g.
Penny-wise and pound-foolish…but mostly informed by their own bigotry. $193 million to discharge gay soldiers for simply being gay is outweighed by $10,000 to educate soldiers on the new rules. Because gay is bad, mmmkay?
By that reasoning, to fix the economy we need to get rid of people like Scott, Wilson and Blom who are fomenting dissension in society and government. If the Pentagon is getting on “swimmingly” with transition and the change will save millions, surely the worst thing to do would be to disrupt that process?
The proposal to cut $5.3 trillion dollars in the next whatever includes additional tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations and individuals. So fuck you, American citizens, and your little dogs, too. The notion that draconian spending cuts will somehow increase jobs (something than Boner has specifically said) is staggering in its stupidity.
It’s not stupid. It’s just a lie.
It’s known as the Republican platform.
If we have start trying to distinguish between stupidity and lies, this thread just got more complicated.
True enough. I see in today’s NYT that Obama has thrown down the gauntlet on extending the budget deadline and said no more fucking cuts. I guess we’ll see if he can call their bluff or not, and if they have the will to carry through on their threats to allow government to shut down. They, of course, don’t sweat not getting their paychecks.
The “calling the bluff” analogy is a bit off the mark. In poker, from whence the term derives, you call someones bluff, they gotta show their cards, and its over. In this case, if Obama calls their bluff, they can raise, and raise again. Once the shutdown starts rolling, they can raise their demands for compromise, they can demand a law that says the Federalist Society and the Koch Brothers get veto power on Supreme Court appointments.*
They were, in saner times, held in check by public opinion. They no longer seem to care about that, they only care about the solid minority that put them there, they’re dancing with the one what brung them.
We live in interesting times.
- I’m kidding. I hope. Ha, ha! Ha. Ha?
I have a cow-orker who is from Canada. He has informed us that, in Canada (and this may just be him, but work with me here), when one says, “Hmm, that’s interesting,” it’s actually a polite way of saying, “Wow, that’s stupid.”
We’ve taken to referring to less popular ideas as being 'Canadian interesting."
Yes, very interesting, indeed.
In Minnesota, we say, “that’s different.”
Do you do it with a significant pause? “That’s…different…”
That’s how my mom always used “interesting” when she didn’t want to say outright “I hate that and I think you’re insane for liking it.”
Me: Mom, don’t you love that sweater?
Mom: It’s very…interesting…
In America, those with classier upbringing say “How interesting.” The rest of us say “No shit?”
WTF!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050970-503544.html
While I applaud Paul Ryan’s courage in embracing one of the third rails of politics (privitizing medicare), I am fucking stunned that he thinks that what we need now is MORE TAX CUTS for the rich. What’s more, he is downplaying the impact of these proposed tax cuts by using “dynamic scoring” which is another way of saying, the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves.
Its one thing to say that lower taxes leaves more money in the economy, which can lead to more economic activity. Its an entirely different thing to assume that the positive effect of these tax cuts will have as much of an effect as he assumes while AT THE SAME TIME assuming that there will be no negative economic impact from reducing government spending by trillions of dollars.
I’m fine with cutting spending, it may very well be necessary, but we need to be honest with ourselves about the short term economic effects of pulling that much money out of the economy.
He also claims that we will cut tax expenditures to cover the cost of the tax cuts (which is a small number because of dynamic scoring) by cuting expenditures by that smaller number, without accounting for the fact that dynamic scoring GOES BOTH WAYS.
You can’t say I will cut taxes by 2% but it will really only be 1% because of dyanamic scoring and then I will pay for that tax cut by eliminating other tax cuts (i.e. increasing taxes) equal to 1%. He is in effect claiming to be able to pay for a 2% tax cut with a 1 % tax increase.
I’m not saying taht this is impossible. Some taxes are more economically efficient than others, but he doesn’t make taht distinction, he assumes all tax cuts will only reduce revenue by a percentage of what teh CBO would say while eliminating other tax breaks will increase revenue by what teh CBO would estimate.
There are only a limited number of big ticket tax expenditure items that can cover that sort of nut.
GOP-controlled Florida House of Representatives bans “uterus”.