Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Maybe others (those "complaining") aren't looking at just the number... but the context of what we do with our money.

    Yeah, it is a big number. (to me and you)

    It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

    Of course, in the real world... when you spend money once it is gone. So, realistically, something should be cut if they spend the money for Tsunami relief.

    That's easy.

    Bush proposed spending $270M [washingtonpost.com] on lying to kids about sex next year. (abstinence)

    They want to spend $100M [news-leader.com] lying about Social Security
    • It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

      You think that's interesting? It isn't. Comparing apples and oranges never is.

      Bush proposed spending $270M on lying to kids about sex next year.

      False. Even if there is some false information in there that could possibly rise to the level of a lie, most of it is accurate, whether you agree with its aims or not.

      They want to spend $100M lying about Social Security.

      False. Social security is scheduled for failure, and it begins to lose money starting
      • but to call it a lie is ridiculous nonsense.

        Ouch... I think I hit a soft spot.

        ;-)

        That's what I get for trying to stay on topic [google.com]. (Yeah, I was exagerating. I don't think Bush is lieing. That requires he know the statements to be false. I'm not convinced he knows much at all. A lot like Ronnie... He is simply repeating what he is told to say. (Same players even.) OTOH, they say that ignorance is no excuse... and even Bush has tried to kill retards.)

        However.

        I find it hard to care that you think Bush has been "lying" and "misleading" when the bulk of your evidence for it is, itself, exactly that.

        I'm absolutely certain that for every "fact" you can present, I can find one that counters it. And mine will be as credible to me as yours are to you.

        The hardest thing you and I could do is to agree on a source of information. (Even thou our opinions differ on many things, I'm pretty sure that if we could agree on the facts we could agree on things based on those facts. Said differently, I think reasonable men can be reasonable.)
        It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.
        You think that's interesting? It isn't.

        Yes, I think it is interesting.

        There is a lot of data there. Possibly more than some want to recognize.

        Comparing apples and oranges never is.

        Comparing how much we want to "help" a people that "asked" for our help vs. another people that want our help and have asked for it...

        Those aren't apples and oranges.

        (Oh wait... one would be a selfless, moral act. The other would be one mired in greed with a huge potential for future oil money... not to mention the immediate over billing potential.)

        Anyways...

        My "real" point was, and is, that the amount is a pittance compared to the things we do spend money on. And while it is our money to spend as we like, the priorities we have set are very telling indeed. How we spend our money says more about us than the words that we use to tell others about ourselves.
        • That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent. Read some of Reagan's own writing, and you would be unable to assert that.

          I'm absolutely certain that for every "fact" you can present, I can find one that counters it. And mine will be as credible to me as yours are to you.

          You actually gave what you said was evidence that Bush was lying that turned out not to be that. Maybe you have better facts, but you already lied (or maybe you were just ignorant).

          Compar
          • That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent.

            I did not say they were unintelligent. I said he doesn't know much. There is a difference. I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts. I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.

            I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.

            I also didn't say Ronnie was stupid. I said that Bush did like Ronnie. He says what people tell him to say.

            Like a puppet. (or, in Ronnie's case..
            • Ronald Reagan's Presidential papers [utexas.edu]. I am certain you can find plenty in there to make him look intelligent, as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
              • Thank you.

                as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")


                I don't guage intelligence by opinion. I do guage intelligence by whether opinions are well reasoned. (Even if based on flawed data. You work with what you have. However, ignoring relevant data gets you dinged big time.)
            • I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts.

              I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.

              I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.

              It is interesting that all of the physicals he had as president never turned up anything to do with the alzheimers.

              You can turn on the TV and see the need.


              Another post filled with ridiculous, unintelligent, ignorant, bullshit. I won't be replying to you anymore.
              • see the apogee
                of pudge-argumentation
                in one sorry line

                When the interlocutor finds himself caught between "I can outlast you in a nit-picking demeaning bastard contest" and "I'm taking my toys and going home," what is he to do?

        • Being not really neutral either, I decided not to participate in this discussion. However, pudge, you really sound totally partisan, to the point that you ignore everything as irrelevant that doesn't 100% match your own thinking.
          • Then you aren't listening very closely.

            I don't mind criticism of Bush. I have plenty of my own (indeed, in that very post you are referring to, I said I disagreed with the very notion of NCLB, which is one of Bush's most prized initiatives, which is hardly something a "totally partisan" Republican would do). But his criticism was mostly bullshit, and I called him on it.