Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I believe there is a cut-off for the size of a business that determines what it can and can't make you do. I assume most will ether size down to go under the radar or raise prices. If your going to little business, it's usually because the service/product is much better there.
Dave
Staff member
Yeah, that's a pretty damning cover...until you realize the author is dead wrong on several fronts and there was no fact-checking going on.
In any event, an opinion piece should not be used as the cover of a news magazine, even if it is salacious enough to gain readership and publicity.
In any event, an opinion piece should not be used as the cover of a news magazine, even if it is salacious enough to gain readership and publicity.
Newsweek is an opinion mag though.
GasBandit
Staff member
Same goes for the other stories from 2008
But the point was showing the buyer's remorse of Newsweek's EIC.
Edit - clicked the link. Paul Krugman rebuts? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... And then a professor from UC Berkeley chimes in! HAR! And it all boils down to "NUH UH OBAMACARE IS PAID FOR!"
rofl.
GasBandit
Staff member
The difference between what I "whine about" and this is I didn't insult Dave. Whereas every time I post in a political thread, I can count on the usual suspects to call me everything but a child of god.
There's ad hominem and then there's a repeated tendency to make arguments about things as you wish them to be and not how they are. I don't post stuff by John Stossel for this same reason anymore either. Basically, Paul Krugman has sloughed his credibility. He is a schill.
Plus, even the article linked admits that Krugman and Ferguson have had it in for each other in public for a long time. There's personal bias going on there as well.
Dave
Staff member
I'm offended by your lack of offensiveness.
You actually make some good points but I don't think their vendetta against each other makes the lack of facts on his part less incorrect. And no offense, but I'd believe a professor of economics over most of the people here or in conservative blogs whose only background is radio or law.
GasBandit
Staff member
Such is your prerogative as a sapient being. I would point out that just because one is a professor doesn't mean he can't use the prestige of his position to dishonestly push an agenda. Plus, contrary to what Krugman says, the updated, readjusted March 2012 CBO report shows "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period."
Krugman is saying that the ACA (which I must admit is faster and easier to type than ObamaCare even if it doesn't have the appeal) is completely paid for and will reduce the deficit. I don't think there is anybody else that is bothering with that charade anymore. He is either incredibly misinformed or lying his pants off.
And that's not even taking into account what inevitably happens with every government expenditure:
GasBandit, I find it interesting that you posted the Anti-Obama Article, but not the Anti-Romney one they did a few weeks back, especially considering they give him a harder time than they ever gave Obama.
They actually raise a really important point about Romney in it though: that he plans an escape route for every move he makes or refuses to put himself at risk, even if it means he has to avoid an issue altogether. This is a great strategy for a businessman, but it's pretty terrible for a candidate.
Also, is that second graph adjusted for inflation? In actual dollars that sounds right, but in real dollars it probably would be different.
They actually raise a really important point about Romney in it though: that he plans an escape route for every move he makes or refuses to put himself at risk, even if it means he has to avoid an issue altogether. This is a great strategy for a businessman, but it's pretty terrible for a candidate.
Also, is that second graph adjusted for inflation? In actual dollars that sounds right, but in real dollars it probably would be different.
GasBandit
Staff member
It says it is adjusted for inflation, but it doesn't say in what direction - probably adjusted to 1966 dollars if I had to guess. And that's only to 1990. In 2011 Medicare cost $489 billion (in 2011 dollars).GasBandit, I find it interesting that you posted the Anti-Obama Article, but not the Anti-Romney one they did a few weeks back, especially considering they give him a harder time than they ever gave Obama.
They actually raise a really important point about Romney in it though: that he plans an escape route for every move he makes or refuses to put himself at risk, even if it means he has to avoid an issue altogether. This is a great strategy for a businessman, but it's pretty terrible for a candidate.
Also, is that second graph adjusted for inflation? In actual dollars that sounds right, but in real dollars it probably would be different.
As for the Romney cover - I would have considered it more noteworthy if Newsweek had spent as much time in 2008 illustrating him in a messianic fashion as they did Obama. That they disparage Romney on the cover isn't new or out of character - Obama, is.
GasBandit
Staff member
Aaaaand the huffington post is doing its part to further civil discourse:
That's not a photoshop.
I'm against the banning of abortion (and Todd Akin is clearly a moron), but HuffPo has officially out-lowed the daily mail, much less fox news. It's not a news site, it's a democrat opinion blog. Wonkette v 2.0.
That's not a photoshop.
I'm against the banning of abortion (and Todd Akin is clearly a moron), but HuffPo has officially out-lowed the daily mail, much less fox news. It's not a news site, it's a democrat opinion blog. Wonkette v 2.0.
GasBandit
Staff member
Everything about that story is mind-boggling. "Asian scientists are an offensive stereotype! It should be a neutral person! You know, a white person." Wait, what? Then the BoC apologised for its racism. It wasn't racist!
Little Face Mitt is TERRIFYING. He's like a Pixar movie gone bad.
GasBandit
Staff member
Obama fundraised Wednesday night with NBA star Carmelo Anthony, who helped make a popular pro-drugs YouTube video called “Stop Snitching.”
I want to see this done on SNL or the Daily Show or SOMETHING.
Man, that is old news. Melo is a Baltimore native. He didn't help make that video so much as he happened to be visiting his stupid ass friends from back in the day.
I just followed that link. Any site that calls Michael Jordan a failed baseball player is not worth reading.
GasBandit
Staff member
Because he rocked at baseball?
Kind of surprised this one came from politico: According to a bunch of professors who study this stuff, Mitt Romney will win the popular vote and take the White House with more than 300 electoral votes.
Apparently Romney's political ads are getting independents on board.
An energy loan watchdog who performed an independent review that exonerated the Obama administration's program of loans to energy companies turns out to be a big-time Obama donor.
Wall Street may lean Republican this presidential election cycle, but the New York media world is staunchly in the Democrat column.
GasBandit
Staff member
In a move that many in the U.S. might consider a mere slap on the wrist, a court in Norway has found Anders Behring Breivik sane and sentenced him to just 21 years in prison for the 2011 massacre of 77 people at a youth camp on Utoya Island.
From the article: "at least 21 years in prison" "The sentence was the most severe permitted under Norwegian law, but it can be extended at a later date if he is still deemed to be a danger to society." So I wonder what that means. For example, for "life imprisonment" in Canada, it means you can't apply for parole for 25 years. But only if designated a "dangerous offender" can you be kept in perpetuity (Bernardo, and very few others have that). The article's reporting about the sentence is actually very bad in that it doesn't make such distinctions on the sentence. So let's hope it's something like life, and 21 is just the parole period, but I really don't know. I am glad there's the "can be extended later" thing, but somebody who actually lived in that country would be best for a real explanation.
They aren't going to let him go. There would be rioting in the streets if they let him go.
Because he rocked at baseball?
Because being insulting for no good reason (and ignoring the context of what he managed to accomplish, however meager) is not indicative of good writing.
To be fair, he was treated for mental illness. It's not like they let out a violent serial killer. Mercy, treatment, rehabilitation... these are things worth encouraging.
Personally, I think it's more complicated than that. One has to factor in things such as motivation, method, and mental state. There's no hard rule for it... just determine whether or not the guilty party could ever be considered safe enough to be around the public. If the answer is "never," then they should get life without parole.
GasBandit
Staff member
So you believe that there is no point at which a person's crime becomes irredeemable simply by virtue of the heinousness of the crime alone? That even had a man orchestrated the deaths of millions, true crimes against humanity, that would not be enough on its own to throw away the key - other factors such as mental state et al must be considered after 20/25 years?
I think in that situation they'd keep him indefinitely for his own safety, if only because people would seek him out to murder him in retribution.
See, now you completely changed your argument. The original question was "How many people does one have to kill before it becomes unquestioningly necessary to eliminate any possibility of parole?" And my answer was "It depends on more than just a number."
Now you want to start using different terms. And then you throw in questions such as, "So you believe that there is no point at which a person's crime becomes irredeembable simply by virtue of the heinousness of the crime alone?" That wasn't the original question that you put forth. The concept of "heinousness" is completely different from picking a number as the threshold for indefinite incarceration. But apparently that won't stop you from twisting up what I said and running with it.