What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

FreshFish said:
Four incremental pieces of information that we need to include as part of a controlled scientific experiment.

1) a tax on yacht value over $30,000 on yachts is not the same as a tax on auto value over $30,000, since most yachts cost far more than luxury autos ("what is the average purchase price of yacht in 1991 vs luxury car?")

2) It is relatively easy to go to another country to buy a yacht and sail it here. It is not nearly so easy to go overseas to buy a car and then ship it here. ("how much does it cost to ship a car from Europe vs sail a yacht from Europe?")

3) Most US yacht builders nearly went out of business in the early 1990s; automakers, not so much. (former was cited in NY Times article).

4) what proportion of US automaker sales were affected by tax compared to what proportion of US yachtmaker sales were affected by the tax (how much did US Automakers also sell overseas vs how much did US yachtmakers sell overseas?)

It was never presented as "all or none" but as "relative proportion." The tax impacted yachts far more heavily than cars on a relative basis because the amount of the purchase price subject to tax on the yachts was much higher than the amount of the purchase price subject to tax on the cars. (e.g, if average yacht is $100,000 and average luxury car is $50,000, then the former has a tax 3.5 times greater than the latter; not quite apples to apples when parsing out the effect of the tax relative to the effect of the recession).
Click to expand...

Purchasing a car overseas and shipping it back to the US is tricky business, too. You have to be able to bring the car up to safety and emissions codes of the United States if you're intent on using it on our roads. So there's a limiting effect on the automobile market that likely does not exist in the yacht market. At some point during the 80s, US soldiers would buy expensive cars overseas and ship them here for relatively cheap prices. At the time, the US did not have restrictions on individuals importing cars the way we do now. My brother was stationed in Germany at the time of the change, and a lot of his friends on base were doing what they could to buy a car and ship it home before the new restrictions went into place.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

ok...let's carry this forward

St. Clown said:
Purchasing a car overseas and shipping it back to the US is tricky business, too. You have to be able to bring the car up to safety and emissions codes of the United States if you're intent on using it on our roads. So there's a limiting effect on the automobile market that likely does not exist in the yacht market. At some point during the 80s, US soldiers would buy expensive cars overseas and ship them here for relatively cheap prices. At the time, the US did not have restrictions on individuals importing cars the way we do now. My brother was stationed in Germany at the time of the change, and a lot of his friends on base were doing what they could to buy a car and ship it home before the new restrictions went into place.
Click to expand...

So even if your/FF's assertion is that there is a difference in the luxury yacht and auto markets is correct, there is no evidence that yacht sales declines were caused by the luxury tax and not the recession. That's why you can't look at that market in isolation.

There was massive growth in the luxury car market once it was out of the recession. And that shouldn't occur if the luxury tax was crushing it.
 
St. Clown said:
Purchasing a car overseas and shipping it back to the US is tricky business, too. You have to be able to bring the car up to safety and emissions codes of the United States if you're intent on using it on our roads. So there's a limiting effect on the automobile market that likely does not exist in the yacht market. At some point during the 80s, US soldiers would buy expensive cars overseas and ship them here for relatively cheap prices. At the time, the US did not have restrictions on individuals importing cars the way we do now. My brother was stationed in Germany at the time of the change, and a lot of his friends on base were doing what they could to buy a car and ship it home before the new restrictions went into place.
Click to expand...
Most European car companies have programs where you buy a car with US emissions, take delivery in Europe, drive it for a week or two with dealer plates (hello, Autobahn!), and then import it to the US as a "used" car. The difference in import taxes is slightly more than enough to pay for the trip to Europe, so...free European vacation!
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

FreshFish said:
Sorry that I am posting a link to a link here....

http://commonknowledge.dukejournals.org/content/15/3/340.full.pdf cites Alasdair MacIntyre, as quoted in Constantine Sandis, “Torn Away from Sureness,” TLS, August 15, 2008, 23 as source



Interesting, if you find both DJT and HRC morally repugnant, he asserts that it is your duty to vote for neither. As a corollary, it seems that a third-party vote is not fruitless nor pointless in this situation, it is a way of making yourself heard that "neither" is your choice, while not voting at all says "leave the status quo alone."

So, if we follow this line of moral reasoning, many of us have a moral duty to vote either for Stein or Johnson.

It is hard for me to find a flaw in this line of reasoning, given the premises, yet I also feel a bit uncomfortable about it. Though Hippocrates words, "first, do no harm" also come to mind.
Click to expand...

That assumes that Stein and Johnson are actually better picks.

Which I doubt is true for many who are upset with Clinton and Trump.

The key part of any election is to do your homework, and not just assume that your "moral" beliefs are the only think you vote on. Democracy takes work by the people.
 
FreshFish said:
Did Hillary Clinton suffer a brain injury which is being hidden from the public?

This blog post actually claims to have video evidence from television interviews...which you can watch for yourself from that site.

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/06/hillary-clinton-stroke-seizure-coughing-fits/
Click to expand...

Can we see his medical credentials please? Until then, near as I can discern, he's a hardcore conservative-for-pay who wrote a book on how to be a sociopath (imagine that).

No soup for you! Next! ;)
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

leswp1 said:
Doesn't this belong in the conspiracy thread? :p
Click to expand...

No kidding. With all the shooting events in the last couple of years, the SS did their job. Protect your charge. I'd be a little freaked out if some protester did their thing when I was speaking. File this under: this is a non-issue/event.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

leswp1 said:
Doesn't this belong in the conspiracy thread? :p
Click to expand...

So Dr. Drew is a member of the conspiracy, eh?

Appearing on KABC’s McIntyre in the Morning, the hosts of the show were expecting Dr. Drew, known as “America’s most trusted physician,” to debunk claims that Hillary is having significant health problems, but Pinsky instead dropped several bombshells.

Pinsky said he and his colleague Dr. Robert Huizenga had already analyzed what medical records on Hillary had been released and were “gravely concerned….not just about her health but her health care.”

Pinsky noted that after her fall, Hillary suffered from a “transverse sinus thrombosis,” an “exceedingly rare clot” that “virtually guarantees somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system.”

“What’s wrong with her coagulation system, has that been evaluated?” asked Dr. Drew, adding, that Hillary was being given “weird” medication that could be exacerbating her health problems.

“So the very medicine doctors are using may be causing this problem and they’re using an old fashioned medicine to treat it – what is going on with her health care?” asked Pinsky.

Pinsky said the situation was “bizarre,” adding that Hillary’s medical condition was “dangerous” and “concerning”.

Dr. Drew also highlighted when Hillary had to wear prism glasses after her fall, declaring, “that is brain damage, and so that’s affecting her balance….tell us a little more about that – that’s profound.”

Pinsky pointed out that the treatment for Hillary’s hypothyroidism – Armour Thyroid – was also “unconventional” and that it has “weird side-effects”.

According to RXList.com, those side-effects include “severe dizziness,” while WebMD lists another side-effect as “tiredness”.

Dr. Drew emphasized that the health care Hillary has been receiving is totally inadequate, commenting, “she’s receiving 1950s-level care by our evaluation.”

“You gotta wonder,” concluded Pinsky, noting that Hillary’s health care could make her physical capabilities a “concern” ahead of the presidential election.
Click to expand...


I thought that the request for this thread was to have evidence-based information, not just opinions without adequate foundation.....
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

You're citing Infowars and some random website no one has ever heard of before, and you expect people to take you seriously.

This is the exact type of shiat I was talking about before. Posts like your last two do not deserve to be taken seriously.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

unofan said:
You're citing Infowars and some random website no one has ever heard of before, and you expect people to take you seriously.

This is the exact type of shiat I was talking about before. Posts like your last two do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Very interesting to see that KABC pulled their own story of the interview...although the youtube is still up...

http://www.kabc.com/2016/08/16/dr-drew-speaks-out-on-hillarys-health/
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

FreshFish said:
So Dr. Drew is a member of the conspiracy, eh?




I thought that the request for this thread was to have evidence-based information, not just opinions without adequate foundation.....
Click to expand...

Scary when Newt Gingrich is a voice of reason...

"Well, first of all, just to get down to a human level for a second, all of us ought to include Hillary Clinton in our prayers. You can be opposed to somebody without hoping that they have bad health, and I hope that she's all right. Second, I'm always dubious, with all due respect to television doctors, when you have a doctor who has never seen the patient, begin to give you a complicated, fancy sounding analysis based on what? I mean, I would be very cautious and I would recommend to doctors for professional reasons to be very cautious deciding you're gonna start analyzing people."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-defends-clinton-health-junk-medicine
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

WisconsinWildcard said:
Mark this down as the point this thread goes off the rails...
Click to expand...

Nope. Watch.

FreshFish said:
Did Hillary Clinton suffer a brain injury which is being hidden from the public?
Click to expand...

No.

Hillary is 68. Trump is 70. I suspect neither is entirely healthy because I am 53 and I gotta tell you youngsters -- things hurt all the time, so if you want to do parkour get off your as-s and do it today.

It's the price we pay for continually failing to make the Dead Thread.

But the thing is, Hillary is rich and Trump is somewhere between a billionaire and broke, and both have the kind of doctors who when things go wrong a 16-year old in Tallahassee goes missing and suddenly there's a couple kidneys available. So they are probably* in rich 70-year old health, which is pretty darn good.

* Trump definitely is, since he has been rich for every second of his life, and especially since he's managed to actually lead a pretty healthy lifestyle. (You know who else had a healthy lifestyle?)

Hillary wasn't rich all her life but she hasn't been going to the Medicaid free clinic, either, and she's been rich for the right tail when it counts.
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Kudos to Associated Press for doing some actual investigative journalism, the kind where you piece together a story using bits found here and there to compile a picture.

The story is by AP no matter what newspaper happens to pick it up from the wire service and publish it:

WASHINGTON — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to the Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
....
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements that Clinton and former President Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

The 154 did not include US federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
Click to expand...

The story is quite long and detailed and gives plenty of names and correlates the dollar amounts of donations to visits to Secretary Clinton to actions then taken by the State Department. This article seems directly aligned with the request at the outset of this thread: the authors are cautious not to draw many conclusions, and instead focus on providing lots of well-sourced information and then showing the connections among various data elements.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

unofan said:
You're citing Infowars and some random website no one has ever heard of before, and you expect people to take you seriously.

This is the exact type of shiat I was talking about before. Posts like your last two do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I knew your partisan bile would blind you to the obvious: I laid a trap and you walked right into it! :p

If you weren't so eager to put your unpleasantness on display for all to see (again) you might have had more sense.




Are you seriously trying to say that WABC did not do the interview with Dr. Drew? and that Dr. Drew did not say the things he was quoted as saying?


I assume the answer is no.

If I were not trying to set you up to expose your nastiness, I would merely have gone to the original source from the outset. :p

https://youtu.be/tRtdA1w7AAQ

Even more interesting, WABC then removed the interview from their website, although many people had saved it by then:
notice that https://www.youtube.com/57c431c3-8d03-4295-ac11-f6275951cb74 now brings up an error message.

Someone saved the full interview before WABC deleted it, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

So, did Dr. Drew Pinsky actually do an interview with WABC? and was he quoted accurately?
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
I knew your partisan bile would blind you to the obvious: I laid a trap and you walked right into it! :p

If you weren't so eager to put your unpleasantness on display for all to see (again) you might have had more sense.




Are you seriously trying to say that WABC did not do the interview with Dr. Drew? and that Dr. Drew did not say the things he was quoted as saying?


I assume the answer is no.

If I were not trying to set you up to expose your nastiness, I would merely have gone to the original source from the outset. :p

https://youtu.be/tRtdA1w7AAQ

Even more interesting, WABC then removed the interview from their website, although many people had saved it by then:
notice that https://www.youtube.com/57c431c3-8d03-4295-ac11-f6275951cb74 now brings up an error message.

Someone saved the full interview before WABC deleted it, however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

So, did Dr. Drew Pinsky actually do an interview with WABC? and was he quoted accurately?
Click to expand...

Why would I care either way? I believe the medical opinion of a celebrity doctor who is best known for a sex advice show with Adam Corolla about as much as I trust the legal opinion of Judge Judy. As in not at all.

And it certainly isn't evidence.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Not to mention, he's basically giving a diagnosis without actually seeing the patient. Pretty sure that's considered rather unethical in medicine.

Millions of people think Dr. Oz is a real doctor, too. He used to be. Oz stopped being a doctor years ago when he found the real money was in brand marketing, and abusing his credentials to endorse ethically questionable products and "treatments". You may recall he was hauled in front of Congress over it.

Much like Trump's entire campaign being about keeping his name and brand out there, Pinsky is just keeping himself in the news with this "diagnosis".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top