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
    • by pudge (1) on 2005.01.11 19:49 (#37382) Homepage Journal
      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 in five years (that is, the trust fund will shrink beginning in five years ... it is not for about 30 years until it actually has a deficit).

      The data shows this. [nationalreview.com] You can disagree with the data or its analysis, but to call it a lie is ridiculous nonsense.

      They (spent) at least a million dollars lying to us about "No Child Left Behind" (the Army recruiter list).

      Nothing on that page mentions any such thing, so I am not sure what you're referring to. Maybe you refer to the fact that NCLB says that schools must give student information to Army recruiters? How does this constitute a lie?

      My personal view of it is that it is a bit distasteful, but I add it to one of the many reasons my children won't attend government schools. The government certainly has this right: we can't tell the federal government they have the right to give money to schools and direct their curriculum, but that they don't have the right to know who is in the schools. It's why I am against such federal control over the schools, and why I was against NCLB (the control/money part, not the recruiter part, which just logically follows).

      "Misleading" citizens seems to be a chronic condition for this administration.

      That issue is far less about being misleading than it is about being covert. Much of what they said in these propaganda spots was accurate, but the way it was done was clearly wrong. Those spots were probably more accurate than the "Drugs Are Bad" and "Army of One" ads we've seen from the government over the years, but these were done covertly, and hence, were worse.

      I suppose you could say that by being covert they were misleading about the origins of the pieces, which is true, but different from the rest of what you've been talking about, which is the content of the messages themselves.

      In short, we could easily pay for the damage if the administration would simply break one bad habit. That "huffy" tone was a clear signal that it isn't going to happen.

      We already are paying for it. It is happening. And we've promised more if there is more need.

      After all you've said above, 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.
      • 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
        • 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.
      • Not arguing about the other points... but even an understatement such as: there is some false information in there [sex education] that could possibly rise to the level of a lie denotes in itself a health hazard. Who will pay for the moral, social and medical damage of letting abstinence-only advocates enter the schools [guardian.co.uk] ?
        • Let me put it this way: every public school sex education curriculum I've seen has lies in it, which can constitute a health hazard (for example, I've seen the effectiveness of condoms wildly misportrayed in both directions). And I firmly believe this inevitable when politicians set such policies, instead of local school boards.

          Remember, we started seeing a lot more sex and teenage pregnancy in schools in America under Clinton and his style of sex education. The incidence of such things did not decrease.
          • I hate getting in the middle of this, but I think that teen pregnancy actually went down in the 1990s. At least that's what I take from a quick look at this set of statistics [agi-usa.org] (Table 2 seems to be the most relevant).
            • I didn't want to get into specifics, but I was speaking more of economic/regional data than overall, e.g., that they went up in inner cities and such, where sex is more common, and sex education more relevant.

              That said, yes, overall, pregnancy rates did go down (though sex rates fluctuated, from the data I've seen [which is much less reliable anyway]); and then again, there's no reason to think abstinence education will cause them to increase.

              This gets very complicated, very quickly. For example, most of
              • I think eminem put it right:

                Of course they gonna know what intercourse is. By the time they hit 4th grade They got the Discovery Channel, don't they?

                The human sexual drive and education is the classical definition of invariance :)

                • I am against all school sex education, for my kids anyway. They will get a much better, more reasonable, broader understanding from me at home. I don't need some idiot teacher trying -- poorly -- to explain sex to my child. Another reason to avoid government schools.