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.
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
It's not an increase. And anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand it. So, about 25% of the US population.
It's not an increase. And anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand it. So, about 25% of the US population.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
thank you! you said in an elegant tactful way the same message i was trying to convey in my stumbling, awkward manner.
thank you! you said in an elegant tactful way the same message i was trying to convey in my stumbling, awkward manner.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
I'd love to know what the comparable numbers were in other elections. I wouldn't be surprised if it always hovers around a third.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
Well this is certainly an uplifting story:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...lybeast/politics+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics)
You know, I'm not sure blatantly racist campaign ads have the same punch that they used to in prior decades. I also love how Ricketts has now folded like a cheap suit, saying this ad was just one that was brought to him for his consideration.
Well this is certainly an uplifting story:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...lybeast/politics+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics)
You know, I'm not sure blatantly racist campaign ads have the same punch that they used to in prior decades. I also love how Ricketts has now folded like a cheap suit, saying this ad was just one that was brought to him for his consideration.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
something goes up from where it is now and yet it is not an "increase," it is merely the "retraction of a reduction." semantics and mind games and spin.
more is greater than less. that's math. you can spin how you describe the operators, but "greater than" is always "greater than" no matter how you spin it.
something goes up from where it is now and yet it is not an "increase," it is merely the "retraction of a reduction." semantics and mind games and spin.
more is greater than less. that's math. you can spin how you describe the operators, but "greater than" is always "greater than" no matter how you spin it.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
So, when soap goes on sale at Target this week and then you buy it next week at regular price you think Target increased the price of soap?
Yeah, that's some fine logic there. No wonder we're getting our asses kicked globally.
So, when soap goes on sale at Target this week and then you buy it next week at regular price you think Target increased the price of soap?
Yeah, that's some fine logic there. No wonder we're getting our asses kicked globally.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
They will have increased the price from what you pay for it this week to what you pay for it next week. We are discussing "relative to" not "absolute."
You are taking a two-step operation and then conflating the two steps into one and then pretending that the two steps never happened in between. That is the source of the apparent confusion.
Soap starts out at $1 per bar last week.
It is reduced to $0.90 per bar this week.
It is then increased from $0.90 per bar this week back up to the $1 per bar that it was last week.
If you start with two weeks ago, the price is the same now as it was then....it was reduced by 10% and then increased by 11% leaving it where it started.
You are saying that since it was $1 last week and $1 next week then no changes occurred in between.
They will have increased the price from what you pay for it this week to what you pay for it next week. We are discussing "relative to" not "absolute."
You are taking a two-step operation and then conflating the two steps into one and then pretending that the two steps never happened in between. That is the source of the apparent confusion.
Soap starts out at $1 per bar last week.
It is reduced to $0.90 per bar this week.
It is then increased from $0.90 per bar this week back up to the $1 per bar that it was last week.
If you start with two weeks ago, the price is the same now as it was then....it was reduced by 10% and then increased by 11% leaving it where it started.
You are saying that since it was $1 last week and $1 next week then no changes occurred in between.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
No.
The sale was for one week only. The tax cuts were passed with an end date. Same same. I guess you and Grover do not understand the concept of temporary and permanent. I do.
The price was never raised. It was temporarily discounted. Two different things. You're the one who can't differentiate. Not me.
No.
The sale was for one week only. The tax cuts were passed with an end date. Same same. I guess you and Grover do not understand the concept of temporary and permanent. I do.
The price was never raised. It was temporarily discounted. Two different things. You're the one who can't differentiate. Not me.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
DING NAB IT.
I know y'all are probably pulling my leg, but let's be clear. If they didn't increase the price, it would stay on sale forever. There is no way to get the price from less to more without INCREASING the price.
ding nab you mean people, aggravating me.
DING NAB IT.
I know y'all are probably pulling my leg, but let's be clear. If they didn't increase the price, it would stay on sale forever. There is no way to get the price from less to more without INCREASING the price.
ding nab you mean people, aggravating me.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
now you are increasing your blood pressure....
now you are increasing your blood pressure....
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
thank you. Maybe I'm not insane after all.
(moving from less to more is an "increase").
thank you. Maybe I'm not insane after all.
(moving from less to more is an "increase").
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
no, no, this is where it was once 10 years ago before I started temporarily exercising. Therefore it's not an increase.now you are increasing your blood pressure....
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
This is the same logic that is preventing our government from functioning. Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.
That's fine. You want to use that logic no problem. There is no way out of the box then.
This is the same logic that is preventing our government from functioning. Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.
That's fine. You want to use that logic no problem. There is no way out of the box then.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
I have no doubt that this is where people will complain that everyone only talks about Bush...but you asked...
First, youre assuming that everything is black or white. Everyone supports everything Obama does or hates it. It wasn't true for you guys and Bush and its not for Dems and Obama. Why do you think there's been so much discussed consternation on the 'far' left about things like gitmo.
But the message is that by and large, Obama has had a much better approach and been more effective.
Obama's focus has been different. Obama: "I continue to believe that the greatest threat to the United States' security are the terrorist networks like Al Qaeda," Bush: "I truly am not that concerned about OBL"
Obama has taken a different approach to terror regarding the Iraq invasion. Obama got us out of Iraq. Bush: "Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."
Obama has taken a drastically different road on diplomacy with various countries. Our cause on terror is not helped by calling other countries around the world evil and constantly raising and lowering the domestic threat level.
And lastly, its hard to argue with results.
Its apparent that at least someone here thinks that Bush's foundational approaches are correct.
I have no doubt that this is where people will complain that everyone only talks about Bush...but you asked...
First, youre assuming that everything is black or white. Everyone supports everything Obama does or hates it. It wasn't true for you guys and Bush and its not for Dems and Obama. Why do you think there's been so much discussed consternation on the 'far' left about things like gitmo.
But the message is that by and large, Obama has had a much better approach and been more effective.
Obama's focus has been different. Obama: "I continue to believe that the greatest threat to the United States' security are the terrorist networks like Al Qaeda," Bush: "I truly am not that concerned about OBL"
Obama has taken a different approach to terror regarding the Iraq invasion. Obama got us out of Iraq. Bush: "Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."
Obama has taken a drastically different road on diplomacy with various countries. Our cause on terror is not helped by calling other countries around the world evil and constantly raising and lowering the domestic threat level.
And lastly, its hard to argue with results.
Its apparent that at least someone here thinks that Bush's foundational approaches are correct.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
This has ZERO to do with anyone's point. I'm the one that said tax increases are NECESSARY, otherwise we'll never pay off the faux "stimulus" waste-athon. But to say that increase is not an increase simply because the rate already "should have been" higher is just stupid. Call it what it is.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils
Nope. We can't increase taxes.
This certainly explains why current intake is at about 15% GDP and outtake is about 25% GDP. We can start wars, we can placate baby boomers, we can nationalize education, we can destroy our credit rating. We cannot pass a law that ends on a certain date. Can't be done.
Nope. We can't increase taxes.
This certainly explains why current intake is at about 15% GDP and outtake is about 25% GDP. We can start wars, we can placate baby boomers, we can nationalize education, we can destroy our credit rating. We cannot pass a law that ends on a certain date. Can't be done.
- Status