Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | "I've always gotten 4-5% raises every year. This year 1%. What a joke. After taxes that will pay for one week's gas a month. I guess if I factor in higher healthcare premiums and worse coverage it's probably a net decrease."
Considering this year's 2-3% deflation rate, a 1% increase is like a 3-4% increase in real terms. During normal years when the inflation is 3%, a 4% increase is like a 1% increase in real terms. In real terms, you actually made out better than you did last year. | Do you believe companies are being untruthful to their employees? |
| 22 | I say yes, generally.
However, there just are some things its ok to be ignorant about and not care, or even proud. For instance, I am ignorant on just about anything that has to do with American Idol. Or any other crapty reality show on these days. I am not only satisfied with that ignorance, a part of me is even a bit proud. | Do you agree with the following statement: Ignorance is forgivable. Satisfaction with ignorance is inexcusable. |
| 23 | Other : In the first video, the woman was right, GWB did inherit the attacks, although I don't mean from Clinton. He inherited it from Carter, Regan, Bush 1, and Clinton. In that second video, that woman probably meant to say there were no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Every President inherits whatever the other presidents done (the good and the bad).
Which is true, there wasn't a single terrorist attack since 9/11. Which means Bush actually knew what he was doing during the next 7 years. There also wasn't a single terrorist attack during the 1 year Obama was in office. So he seems to know what he's doing too. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 24 |
> The single DUMBEST thing I have EVER seen coming from you dude. Really? > REALLY? 9/11 happened nine months into Bush's first term! I don't > recall anyone in the Clinton admin. claiming they inherited the first > WTC attack, or Oklahoma City. > Perhaps I should have phrased that whole paragraph better. Yes, I would argue that Bush "inherited" 9/11. And also, yes, I would also go as far as to argue that Clinton "inherited" the OK city bombings. By that I mean, Muslim extremists have been a problem the US faced for decades before GWB even got elected. Right or wrong, the past decisions and actions of previous presidents have led to Muslim's hating the US (for one reason or another). It is true that GWB has inherited extremist Muslims being angry at the US. And its also true that Al Quaida was at least planning the attacks even before GWB got elected. It is also true that there were always right-wined anarchists out there who hate the government. The Tim McVeigh mentality was around decades (or even centuries) before Clinton got elected. Just ask President William McKinley. He had the learn the hard way. So in a way Clinton did inherit the OK city bombing. I was using a much looser definition of "inherited". Clearly, the 9/11 attacks didn't happen during the 8 minutes that Bush was getting inagurated. > Which is still wrong. How about the 2001 anthrax attacks and the 2002 > attack against an El Al ticket counter at LAX? Or the failed Shoe > Bomber? Then there was this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_U... > Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. I'm > sure with about 2 minutes and Google I could find more. > Ok, I should rephrase that. There wasn't a single major and successful terrorist attack. Also, I am not sure if I would include a shooting as a "terrorist" attack. I generally count bombs, planes, bio, etc. Otherwise, we would need to count Columbine as a terrorist attack. And quite frankly, calling every deranged gun man in the clock tower a terrorist seems a bit of a misuse of the term, albeit its an annoying trend. > |> Which means Bush actually > |> knew what he was doing during the next 7 years. > > Except he didn't, because you are flat out lying. > Calling people liars (true or not), and especially if its just a matter of different definitions or the other person just being wrong generally makes you come off as a dick. Not that you are. Just sayin'. > |> There also wasn't a single terrorist attack > |> during the 1 year Obama was in office. So he > |> seems to know what he's doing too. > > No successful ones at least. Well, no, wait, there was the murder > of Dr. George Tiller. It was a deliberate murder of a civilian in > order to achieve a political objective. But of course the killer was > a White Christian so the So-Called Liberal Media won't call it what > it is. But at least we caught this guy, just like we caught the Underpants > Bomber. Can we say the same for Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri? I guess we can sort of count that Fort Knox as one. Again, for some strange reason, I have a tough time considering violence using firearms as terrorism. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 25 |
> Looser than what Perino and Matalin and Guiliani were implying. > Fair enough, although I haven't been paying attention to what Guiliani had to say in quite some time. I used to like the guy a lot, but now he comes off as pretty annoying. I haven't even heard Perino and Matalin up until now. I guess there are some right-wingers out there that would try to somehow blame Clinton and others as much as possible for 9/11 in order to pass as little blame to GWB. The reality is that all presidents for the past 20-25 share some of the blame. GWB inherited the conditions for which 9/11 could occur, but probably could have done more to try to stop it. Carter gets some blame for being such a peacenik and soft on all US enemies (and that includes both the Soviets and Muslim extremists), Regan and Bush 1 gets some blame for making backtable deals with Muslim extremists in order to defeat the Soviets, which was very shortsighted, Clinton gets a tiny piece of blame for going into Iraq and Bosnia, which took away from going after Osama. GWB gets some blame for not taking the memo seriously enough. To be fair, we get the benefit of hindsight, so its easy to see why many of their decisions were retarded. > So while your defintion of inherited is very loose, your definition > of terrorism is extremely narrow? > Touche. > Beleive it or not, there doesn't have to be explosions, or more than > double digit fatalities to count as an act of terrorism. > > |> I generally count bombs, > |> planes, bio, etc. Otherwise, we would need to > |> count Columbine as a terrorist attack. > > Not necessarily. The purpose of terrorism is to use FEAR to bring > about political or social change. No definition of the word I have > seen has been as narrow as yours. Using your definition, a lot of > the IRA's attacks (ones that involved guns as opposed to bombs) wouldn't > count as terrorism. > My definition of terrorism is I'll know its terrorism when I see it. I don't think theres a single solid definition without any gray area. The one you just gave is probably the best (though not perfect) one. > That's the saddest thing about this new century of ours. Somehow it > became more acceptable to lie, than to call people who lie, liars. > Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years, that's > the one that enrages me the most. > Did you just resort to stealing a debate argument from LJD?!  No offense, but that whole paragraph right there makes you come off as an old grandpa complaining about "kids these days". Obviously, they didn't have crime and disrespectful kids back in the 50's, and also they didn't have uneducated kids back then like they do now who play Wii all day long. And also, teen girls didn't get pregnant because they weren't all sluts like they are today. > Not according to law enforcement officials. Maj. Hassan's deal seems, > at least at this juncture, to be more a mental breakdown/"suicide > by cop" deal. I'll wait until the final report though before I comment > any further on that. > So in order words, we need even more details than we already have to know for sure if its a terrorist attack or not. Basically, we need to split hairs to know if its terrorism or not, which goes back to my original point that we don't even have a good definition of what constitutes terrorism. > But as per your last point, that is simply narrowminded thinking. > The number 1 definition of terrorism at Dictionary.com is, -noun 1. the > use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political > purposes. Like I said, if the goal is to cause a nation, say the United > States, to dramatically alter it's society, say, how we've treated > prisoners of war since oh, WWII for example, by means of making us > afraid, then regardless of how it is done, be it by flying airplanes > into buildings, or convincing people that one of the two major political > parties doesn't care or won't respond "properly" if people fly airplanes > into buildings, than either is an act of terrorism. That I get, but that still doesn't get rid of all the gray area. Maj Hassan is a prime example. Another is that guy who shot up cops a few months ago after losing his job. FBI found visits to hate groups' websites for over a month before the incident. You get racist guys who are kinda of in the Klan, although they're more like social than active members, who suddenly snap after losing their jobs or something. Then once in a while, you get violent Nation of Islam guys who were pretty violent before joining. There isn't a single definition that is perfect without gray area of what counts as terrorism. I prefer to error on the side of narrowness than broadness. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 26 | "I sure hope we don't go by your definition SY. I'd hate to think that the Bushies could be allowed to sweep the victims of the anthrax attacks under the rug, all in the name of making Obama look bad."
My "definition" of terrorism is that I'll know its terrorism when I see it. That tends to be everyone's definition to some extent. Also, I doubt the Bushies would want to make Obama look bad, since they have nothing to gain by doing so. "And of course political terrorism would be okay because hey, it's only generated fear, it's not like someone blew up or anything." Gee, no, that wasn't jumping to conclusions. Anyway, if something isn't considered to be terrorism, it would still be considered a crime. I don't think that the FBI (or whoever has juristidiction) cares if you classify something terrorism or just crime. They'll just do what needs to to get the job done. (PS - now that I think about it, any sitting president would actually have an incentive to classify every attack on their watch as terrorism, simply because they'd get more leverage to fight it. It was GWB that instituted the Patriot Act (which you made a huge deal about it), and calling something terror generally gives the government a work around for having to get a warrant) | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 27 | Since you went to the trouble of highlighting your own text in bold, so that now you can't claim of being misquoted.
"Somehow it became more acceptable to lie, than to call people who lie, liars. Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years, that's the one that enrages me the most." 1) On what are you basing your assertions that it has become more acceptable to to lie than to call those people liars, especially in comparison with the past. Thats a pretty bold assertion. 2) "Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years,...". Perhaps I should stop you right there. Ok, do tell. What other "trends" have you noticed in the past ten years. Generally, people who "notice" trends when there are none tend to come off as looking like they're trying to justify some narrow point of view, or make a profit if they're the media. I am sure you're familiar with all the trends LJD is ranting about. Apparently, Mexican drug gangs are taking over the entire nation according to her, which you no doubt took her to task on that. Yep, thats your right now. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 28 |
>  > cat without some ex-Bush Admin. official attacking Obama on the flimiest > of pretenses. 1) An ex-Bush Admin official is not exactly what I would call a Bushie. A Bushie would be GB Sr, GWB, a member of GWB's family or a close personal friend. How many of these officials were really insiders anyway. It hasn't occurred to you that many of them are just looking out for their own career as talking heads, and most of them weren't as highly ranked in the administration as they would have you believe. 2) You only get to hear the "Bushies" that are talking smack, but the ones that actually like him don't get covered. 3) Wait, I take that back. I've seen a glimpse of Tom Ridge (he would be a Bushie in your eyes I am sure) talking with Hanity. Hanity asked him "are you concerned our security will be weaker under Obama" or something like that (probably expecting him to agree with him). Ridge replied that no, security won't be weaker, and then they argued for a few minutes. Apparenently, a talking head like Hanity knows more about national security than the guy who was actually in s charge of security (to be fair, Tom Ridge was the guy who came up with the retarded color alert system). Oh wait, did you miss Colin Powell's endorsing Obama? 4) The only people that I would really consider Bushies that also would fall under the category of attacking Obama on the flimiest pretense is Karl Rove and Dick Cheny. That still outnumbers the bushies that have a favorable opinion of Obama. btw - GWB is one of the few high ranking guys in the GOP that actually thinks Obama is doing a pretty decent job. I guess the one guy that really was the President would know how hard the job really is. 5) Your definition of "not getting out much" seems to be "watching a whole lot of Fox News, or at least clips on YouTube". Do you just sit there watching the FNC all day long whenever you get some free time just waiting to catch someone saying something stupid? You seem to know more about what Rush or Hanity said on any given day than the people who actually listen to them. > Only in the minds of a NeoCon. Plenty of other countries have dealt > with terrorism without raping laws that date back to the Magna Carta. Two words: Amanda Knox. Sure, if you want to conviently overlook the fact that the US has one of the strongest constitutional rights for defendants in the world, way stricter than the ones in EU countries. This may come as a shock to you, but in most countries (including EU members) there is no such thing as Miranda rights, and its very easy for the police to wiretap anyone's phone lines. Face it, the Patriot Act (which I disagree with a lot of stuff in there) just made the US laws similar to what pretty much every other country already does. Funny you should even mention the Magna Carta, because in Britain, it is perfectly legal for the government to drive around in a van with infrared sensor trying to catch people stealing cable. And good luck if their government seizes your hard drive, which happens to be encrypted. Not only can they force you to give up your encryption key, but you are not even allowed to tell the news media that they made you do it (which is another 5 years in prison). | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 29 | External hard drives. Largely due to privacy issues. Something tells me trusting all my data with some knuckleheads 100 miles away just isn't a very good idea. Also, memory is getting cheaper as time goes by, so you'd have to be a real cheap ass to rely on a cluster network to store all your crap.
I won't be missing new college textbooks (not that it effects me anyway). I've been buying cheap ones from amazon for years. I even bought a whole bunch and sold them for profit once. | Smartmoney.com says there are 10 things not to waste money on in 2010. Which of these would you miss if they went away? |
| 30 | Maybe I should add newspapers to my vote. The boss won't know you're reading a newspaper at work instead of working because it won't show up in the logs.  | Smartmoney.com says there are 10 things not to waste money on in 2010. Which of these would you miss if they went away? |
