Rich SOB Says Treatment Of Rich Like The Holocast

Where you can be both at the same time!

I'm offensive and I find that Sharia law.

you'll do that better than I ever could.

You just made a strawman and then complained about strawmen in the same post.

To sum this up:

Your conduct in this and other treads is exactly why I've been dancing around this for a week.


You didn't open the discussion with anything worthwhile other than your presumptions that you believe are infallible and finite.


Then, you go on to make the comparison to Palin, which has been par for the course for 'Pubs. Which is a ridiculous comparison because Davis's accomplishments and credentials blows Palin's out of the water.

You haven't once spoken about the actual issues (from either side) the few times Davis has been brought up.

You're a caricature and you're beyond predictable.


Maybe you should ask yourself why I've been putting this on the back-burner.

Sarah Palin and Wendy Davis I like where this is going.

Too busy playing Red v. Blue to care about "facts"

If you don't accept my narrow interpretation of politics, you're a rabid Obama supporter. Full stop. I am the beginning and end of all things political and my word is law.

"But I didn't believe Obama got it right on Snowden, LBGT issues or the economy. I think Mr. Snowden forced the hands of the administration to talk about widespread privacy issues going well back to the Patriot Act."
"I feel Obama evolved on LBGT issues because he became aware politically that it'd sell well with his base. I mean, he is a politician right?"
"I do believe Obama got railroaded by Republicans looking to logjam the democratic process as part of an orchestrated plan to freeze government. This is well documented since the '08 dustup."
"Obama is really just par for the course in American foreign policy coupled with reactionary behavior coming off two costly and largely ineffective wars."

Obama 10/10, he should be president for life.

Ever heard of eternal return ? This thread is an example of that.

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence -- even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!" Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine"? If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are, or perhaps crush you. (GS 341)

I don't know where you learned math, but there is several flaws in your logic.

Tell me King, what was wrong with Solyndra?

Its something to get hung up on because 500M seems like a lot of money to people who know nothing about technology grants/loans or rapid market changes.

I know that, stop crushing my dream of hoping a neocon would actually learn something instead of popping out buzzwords.

Benghazi!

The next time you are all complaining about CEO's making millions of dollars I'll point out what a small sum 500M dollars is to you when its given to a major Obama donor's company a year before they go bankrupt; the company also a model of green energy success. You guys are so full of crap. Don't ever, ever complain about corruption if you choose to ignore Solyndra. It is the definition of corruption. It's graft.

You have no idea why they went bankrupt, you don't know how the business works, you're repeating buzzword *** because it's what's spoon fed to you and you cannot and will not think outside of your little box.

It has nothing to do with corruption, it has everything to do with they bet on a particular research, the research ended up being moot as the price of silicon plummeted, therefore they couldn't sell the product they made, therefore going bankrupt. Hopefully the technology they invented, is now open for the public to use, but I doubt it, I should look into it.

They took a gamble, and lost. The fact that they got research grant money (when it comes to technology, 500 million on research is nothing).

When it comes to a salary, 500 million is too much.

You're a tool.

Not to mention that the loan was initiated under Bush, and supported by some Republicans. Also it was a loan, a loan they could have paid back if the market didn't shift on them. It's not like they took the money and pocketed it, and didn't do anything, they created something, something that became moderately pointless, but they did create something with their loan money.

Neocons would be slightly more respectable if they fought the actual battles instead of trying to make scandals out of things that aren't, there's plenty of real scandals, focus on those and you wouldn't look like such fools.

You draw croney connections and corruptions in relation to a technology company going bankrupt in the changing tide of business. I never complained about CEO's making millions, I complained about CEO's bankrupting companies while taking large bonuses and paying people at the bottom peanuts. You're, once again, trying to put two unlike things into one category to support your irrational hatred of "liberals" and a black guy. How many billions did the Bush administration pump into Halliburton and Blackwater? Try harder/

500 million dollars may seem like a small item when compared to the federal budget, but when most of it goes into the pocket of a donor it is enormous corruption.

Deal with your childhood issues.

Where's all the money? They went bankrupt after only paying back a fifth of what they borrowed a year later. Golden parachute wut? You say I draw connections, you ignore them.

It didn't go into pocket...

Fact: the deal was set up before Obama took office, initiated by the Bush administration and several Republicans.

Fact: the company invested the money into technology like they were supposed to, and came out with a product.

there is no evidence of corruption, stop making up scandals!

pretty sure most of the money went into building a plant to produce solar panels:

tldr
It's only a non issue if you don't care what happens in the future.
and I totally want to ride a Stegosaurus.

FFXIAH.com : Where abortion and Solyndra can be discussed simultaneously in a thread with holocaust in the title.

To be fair, the title actually says "holocast."

Carrelo wins the thread. We're done here.

I wasn't quibbling with your data points. I was pointing out that you took two pieces of data, made a lot of assumptions, and drew conclusions. That is not how statistics work. You have to also back up your assumptions with some data or a tested hypothesis that can be applied broadly.


I know you are familiar with hypocrites. There are many people who say one thing and practice another.

Not everyone who has an abortion is pro-choice. You may want to define them that way but that is not how they define themselves.

Not everyone who is pro-choice would have an abortion. They advocate choice for the woman but not necessarily because they agree with that choice.

They also won't be able to vote if they are disenfranchised. This is an increasing trend with over 5.5 million (2.5% of voting population) Americans currently not allowed to vote.

That is true but I was pointing out that you are assuming if abortion was illegal those 57 million have been born and not aborted anyway. I think we all know that just because something is illegal this doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

In countries with strict abortion laws abortions still occur. When abortion was illegal in the US abortions still occurred. The percentage of abortions to live births has decreased in the US since 1973.

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75174/1/WHO_RHR_12.02_eng.pdf?ua=1

For comparision: in the US it is 19.6 16.0 induced abortions per 1000 women in the reproductive age range (2008)CDC 2008

Making something illegal doesn't make it any less likely to happen. It just makes it more dangerous. Examples: drugs, alcohol, prostitution.

There are issues that do not follow ideological lines when they directly affect that person.

Women who advocated for the right to vote didn't necessarily come from families who wanted women to vote. Homosexuals who advocate gay rights don't necessarily come from families who advocate gay rights.

This is actually unknown at the moment.

There are various studies looking at how the internet has affected voter turnout, social media influencing people's perspectives, and if there is a cluster affect ('birds of a feather' being able to easily find one another and re-enforce shared ideas) from the internet.

Children (under the age of 18) tend to match their parents ideological views. However, between 18-24 those views change because of work, school, travel, experiences, pregnancy/starting a family, etc.

One survey saw a change of 20% from how a student identified themselves when they entered college to when they left.


That's actually not true.

According to polls that have asked the same question every year since 1975 the numbers are pretty static. p.9-10
http://www.aei.org/files/2014/01/16/-attitudes-about-abortion-an-aei-public-opinion-study_165237903059.pdf

edited~