New Lucid Dream App That's Free for Reddit

PerfectLucidity · 6 days

I'd love to check this out.

politicaldan · 8 days

lolwut.

pminasia · 9 days

no no no, I'm not a dodger fan. "a dodger fan" was the answer to "who the hell brings an IPad to the game?!?"

newsens · 9 days

why wouldn't you have the title link to this?

pminasia · 9 days

a dodger fan.

it's cool though, they'll leave in the 6th inning and you'll have an unobstructed view.

secaa23 · 9 days

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by:

So long as general elections can be so easily bought by campaign funds we will always have a problem of money in politics, and no regulations will stop that.

The education you're expecting of the voters only comes from transparency and the way the system is setup now (superpacs, etc), voters are basically denied the requisite knowledge by definition. I don't see how that changes without more regulation.

roflcopter44444 · 9 days

You know what they say about assumptions..

daynightninja · 10 days

You're right, though I don't think I'd actually call that "press".

secaa23 · 10 days

So long as general elections can be so easily bought by campaign funds we will always have a problem of money in politics, and no regulations will stop that.

Setting aside the fact that I disagree with your conclusion (since I agree with most of the rest of what you said), what do you think the solution is?

And incidentally, do you support (in the general sense of the word) the occupy folks? Even though I'd guess you probably have a different political leaning than most occupy folks, you seem to be elucidating a similar problem.

secaa23 · 11 days

FYI: It's not pay that occupy is protesting, it is (among other things) the inordinate influence of money in politics.

And while I'm not sure if occupy has ever actually protested the salaries of union bosses (?), plenty of occupy actions have pissed the unions off.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/07/BUTP1M8VTI.DTL

Breeegz · 13 days

what does the before picture look like?

daynightninja · 13 days

You were mocking the above poster because of his beliefs due to religion, no?

No. I don't know where you see mocking in, "honestly?"

I was pointing out that muslims are far worse in this regard yet liberals circle the wagons around them.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. I don't know any liberals who "circle the wagons" with respect to religious justification for mistreatment of women and gays. I'd be interested in seeing examples of this liberal wagon circling.

daynightninja · 13 days

Thanks for the honest answer.

daynightninja · 13 days

wait, what? what do muslims have to do with same sex marriage?

daynightninja · 13 days

honestly?

nspyder · 13 days

Why not:

"Thank you for calling nick-n-willy's [location], this is Dan speaking, how can I help you today?"

Euphemism · 14 days

I don't think you know what, "correctly" means.

Euphemism · 14 days

I don't think you know what, "gay" means.

cleo316 · 15 days

yes, it's almost as if context really is important (and all of the graphs presented in this thread lack context, though I think the congress + president - debt/gdp is better than simply president - debt / gdp)

cleo316 · 15 days

I've never said that the numbers don't mean anything, I've said that the numbers without context don't paint the whole picture. You're trying to assign some Bush-equivalent blame to Obama (more even, since Obama's been in office 3+ years and Bush was in for 8) and you can't do that without context. That's like claiming there's no difference between first degree murder and an accidental death. From the standpoint of the person who died, you're right, but when you start trying to assign blame, they're clearly different. Context matters.

cleo316 · 15 days

You came along and are now trying to say that it's 'wrong' because 'context'.

I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth.

I said that it was either wrong or completely devoid of context. It remains either wrong or completely devoid of context. When taken in context, the claim, "obama has done as much damage in 4 years as bush did in 8" is wrong.

The context (sorry if I've failed to mention this explicitly and you've failed to guess) was the state of the economy. Obama was wrestling with an economy in freefall (not to mention two wars). Bush was dealing with a budget surplus and a potential mild dot com recession.

cleo316 · 15 days

So you're handwaiving Obamas addition to the national debt because you believe ARRA was a good thing?

sigh

where do you see me saying this?

Uh, yes, they were. Afghanistan directly after, and we would have never gone into Iraq if 911 hadn't happened. In fact, one of the primary reasons for going into Iraq was WMDs (terrorism tool) and support of terrorists.

ITYM, we would never have been able to go into iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened. In fact, one of the primary reasons for going into Iraq was the faked charges of WMD and false linkages between sadaam and alqaeda.

Feel free to go back to the 1920s in that graph and start from there! Again, debt/gdp has not significantly risen under a republican congress!

you're right, if we go back to the 20's we see a massive decrease in spending. hm, what happened at the end of the 20's that might account for that?

then we see a massive increase in 40's. prolly just more tax 'n spend democrats, huh?

Followed by reductions nearly as dramatic until 1973 where we see a slow uptick. In fact, wow, the debt/gdp ration doesn't really start moving there until 1981 under and R Senate and an R president (but again, I'm sure it was just those tax 'n spend demos in the house).

Are you beginning to see a trend?

Maybe I should have specified using the word 'significant'

Yes, maybe, since that would 'significantly' change the meaning of the sentence.

Please tell us how Obama is not responsible for the 5 trillion in national debt added during his reign but all the republicans in that graph are. Otherwise you are contributing nothing to this discussion.

you keep trying to make this about something it's not. YOU made a false statement, I pointed out what was wrong with it. From where I sit, you're the one contributing very little.

cleo316 · 15 days

no, read it again. my claim is that ARRA was the result of trying to turn the economy around. Do you deny this?

And Obama signed it. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Do you not see the connection between ARRA and this discussion?

If you're not trying to give Obama a pass for the 4 years and ~5 trillion added to our debt, what are you trying to say?

that you're comment was either

wrong
so devoid of context as to be meaningless.

I'm on the fence about the wars, but none the less they were executed in response to 9/11

they is plural. they were not executed in response to 9/11.

and Obama continued them. Again I'm not sure what the relevance of your point here is.

we officially pulled out of Iraq (ended the war) in December of 2011. Maybe you missed that?
We're on an accelerated time table for pulling out of Afghanistan in 2013 - 2014. So Obama 'continued' the war in Afghanistan in that he didn't airlift all the troops out on day one, but I don't know why that matters.

In the past 3 decades the US debt in relation to GDP has not risen when the GOP controls both houses of congress.

lol.

that's not what debt in relation to GDP has only risen under democrats. means.
it's not true. debt/gdp rises in 2003 according to your graph.
republicans have only controlled both the house and the senate for less than 1/3 of your completely arbitrary 3 decade window.

cleo316 · 15 days

You claim Obamas spending till 2009 was trying to 'fix the economy' -Apparently this is supposed to excuse his accountability -it's been 3 years since 2009

no, read it again. my claim is that ARRA was the result of trying to turn the economy around. Do you deny this?

-it's been 3 years since 2009 yet the debt keeps going up -while you excuse Obama, you blame Bush

no, read it again. I'm not giving Bush a fail and Obama a pass. Again, I'm trying to provide context for your initial claim that Obama has done as much damage in 4 years as Bush did in 8.

while ignoring the circumstances surrounding his presidency (911, dot com recession, post 911 recession, wars)

you realize that the dot.com bust was followed by a massive housing bubble, right? The dot com bubble was a speed bump compared to the housing crash.

And wars, friend, wars aren't natural disasters, they're chosen.

-Again excusing Obama for continuing the wars he claimed he was going to end

come again?

as another poster mentioned, debt in relation to GDP has only risen under democrats.

what?

Ntang · 15 days

jesus, do you people not recognize sarcasm?

pinchealeman

TROPHY CASE

reddit gold Since February 2012	One-Year Club
Verified Email

pinchealeman

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login