Welcome To A New America!!!!! (For the better even)

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Numberless

Iron Chef Lithuania
Jan 20, 2008
160
0
0
The Frozen North
On what are you basing that assertion?

I am not finding one elegant graph or chart, but if you want to do what I just did and dig through IRS tax statistics for the past several years, you'll find it supporting the rich-get-richer poor-get-poorer assertion. Lots of stuff readily available for combing through on the .gov site.

Prettier links with less raw data:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/03/earlyshow/living/money/main4068795.shtml

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/09/news/economy/incomegap/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
 

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
It is illegal to brew Alcohol in your garage, so to the extent I'm concerned about it already is.

Actually it's not illegal to brew beer... in small quantities (varies by state), but it is illegal to distill alcohol (must protect "Big Alcohol"!).

Edit: It is however legal to home-distill alcohol for "fuel". Wink Wink.

.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Actually it's not illegal to brew beer... in small quantities (varies by state), but it is illegal to distill alcohol (must protect "Big Alcohol"!).

Edit: It is however legal to home-distill alcohol for "fuel". Wink Wink.

.
I think it's legal to "brew" small amounts, but I'm talking about production level/quality alcohol.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
thats not being objective. if that was bush you would likely be laughing and using that to further paint him as an idiot.

Not really no.

If it occurred at the beginning of W's first term under the same circumstance (the justice got ahead of himself and misspoke) then I would have no reason to laugh at him.
If it occurred like... today, after his presidency had passed. Yeah, I'd probably laugh. Only because he deserved it.

We almost lost the man to a pretzel ffs.
bushpretzel.jpg
 

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
Patients are to protect your ORIGINAL DESIGN of whatever you made and have been around for hundreds of years...

(Just a FYI and not being argumentative)

There is a particular problem with the molecules used in medecine or anything used in biology for that matter. Sometimes, it isn't possible to make an alternative because nothing else produces the desired effect.

When it comes to chemistry, a changed atom makes a totally different molecule. That much is obvious. But, when you get into biochemistry, a simple change in the *shape* of a molecule can make it something completely different.

For example, some molecules found in lemons and oranges are in fact the "same" molecule but with a different shape. Here's a good link that explains the basics :
http://americanhistory.si.edu/kids/molecule/04exp.htm
 
Last edited:

Armagon917

TOAST
Mar 6, 2008
339
0
0
The Woodlands, Texas
Not really no.

If it occurred at the beginning of W's first term under the same circumstance (the justice got ahead of himself and misspoke) then I would have no reason to laugh at him.
If it occurred like... today, after his presidency had passed. Yeah, I'd probably laugh. Only because he deserved it.

We almost lost the man to a pretzel ffs.
bushpretzel.jpg

i think you missed my point. if lets say the oath of office was fumbled the first time Bush was elected i'm sure as time passed that would be brought up and used to paint him as an idiot. you're thinking very specific while i'm trying to show the general hypocrisy on that issue. i am completely fine with you not liking Bush. hell, it would be scary if we all thought alike.

there is so much hypocrisy though. Bush lied about WMDs is a great example. Clinton made it US policy to achieve regime change in Iraq. he assured everyone that there were WMDs there as well. i don't hear anyone calling Al Gore or Clinton liars. are they absolved of those statements simply because it was a few years earlier?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related

it sounds like the Clinton administration was ready to do what the Bush administration did. this speech would not have been made if plans were not in palce and they were seriously thinking about it as an alternative if diplomacy didn't prevail. take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg&feature=related

Bush and Clinton were operating off the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion. if Clinton has been president during 911 i believe that he may have made some of the exact same moves that Bush did. so why is Bush the only one being called a liar on this? i think Clinton was a good president minus a few things. politics is all about finding your opponents weak points and focusing on them even when behind it all they believe the same thing.

its on both sides but Bush got a completely unfair shake. i'm sure a Clinton led Iraq war would not have been met with such crticism. anyone here see why as an independent all of this gives me pause. i'm showing one side but it is defintely on both. but my conclusion is that Bush never got a fair shake because of that R by his name.

oh who tagged this thread with " time to paint the whitehouse black" "yikes"- me lol
 
Last edited:

KaiserWarrior

Flyin' High
Aug 5, 2008
800
0
0
its on both sides but Bush got a completely unfair shake. i'm sure a Clinton led Iraq war would not have been met with such crticism. anyone here see why as an independent all of this gives me pause. i'm showing one side but it is defintely on both. but my conclusion is that Bush never got a fair shake because of that R by his name.

If a Clinton-led Iraq War had also obviously been based on lies and misinforming the public, and Clinton had been as arrogant about it as Bush has (I'M TEH DECIDOR), it would have met with the same criticism, make no mistake. In fact, it's pretty safe to say that Clinton met with a rather large amount of criticism over getting his knob polished in the oval office and being a jacakass about it in court, which didn't involve the needless deaths of thousands and enormous national debt.

I bid you compare the reaction to the Afghanistan actions, when we were clearly going after the man most responsible for the towers, to the fallout when we then simply abandoned that and moved over to Iraq.

I'm sorry, but no, Republicans aren't victims of some vast national conspiracy.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
i think you missed my point. if lets say the oath of office was fumbled the first time Bush was elected i'm sure as time passed that would be brought up and used to paint him as an idiot.

I didn't miss your point, you just clarified mine.

If the Oath was fumbled his first time around, then like I said, there'd be no reason to laugh at him.
If it was fumbled his first time around, and then he went on to have the exact same presidency we just witnessed, then yes there'd be more grounds for bringing it up. And they'd be legitimate grounds for that matter.

When you do something silly but maintain dignity people tend to forget it. When you do something silly and then show yourself to be an incompetent ass, people tend to remember.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
I am not finding one elegant graph or chart, but if you want to do what I just did and dig through IRS tax statistics for the past several years, you'll find it supporting the rich-get-richer poor-get-poorer assertion. Lots of stuff readily available for combing through on the .gov site.

Prettier links with less raw data:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/03/earlyshow/living/money/main4068795.shtml

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/09/news/economy/incomegap/index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

I glanced through those last night and for the most part, they're presenting incomplete data, some of it unclearly sourced.

CBS News actually states that low income households saw an increase, but less than that of the upper tier.

CNN presents data analyzed by "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, two liberal think tanks".

The NY Times article... surprise... presents data from the CBPP as well.

I looked through the CBO site that the first article cites and could not find a corresponding report. Perhaps you'll have more luck than I.

The problem with these types of articles is that they cherry-pick their data and present it in the form of a story. Just reading through those linked articles, you are presented with stuff like "well in 2005 you had this and in 2006 you had this". Hardly a scientific study.

The other problem with other similar articles I've read is that they base their information off of Census data - which is simply a snapshot of household incomes at the time it was recorded.

Finally, you have the issue where people look at income as a pie. If group A is taking half a pie... that just leaves a half for groups B, C, and D. Well, it doesn't work that way. There's not a measurably finite amount of money to go around, particularly in a global market.

What you want to see is that the poor - and there will always be poor people for a number of reasons - as a group do not fall below a basic standard of living. The difficulty in measuring that is that income can be measured in so many different ways. Governmental assistance, for one, is not often counted as income.

Data inconclusive.

Here's a chart, for instance, that shows as a percentage, the number of households reporting less than $50,000 actually dropped over a ten year period. http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_income.html

So, go figure.
 

Armagon917

TOAST
Mar 6, 2008
339
0
0
The Woodlands, Texas
If a Clinton-led Iraq War had also obviously been based on lies and misinforming the public, and Clinton had been as arrogant about it as Bush has (I'M TEH DECIDOR), it would have met with the same criticism, make no mistake. In fact, it's pretty safe to say that Clinton met with a rather large amount of criticism over getting his knob polished in the oval office and being a jacakass about it in court, which didn't involve the needless deaths of thousands and enormous national debt.

I bid you compare the reaction to the Afghanistan actions, when we were clearly going after the man most responsible for the towers, to the fallout when we then simply abandoned that and moved over to Iraq.

I'm sorry, but no, Republicans aren't victims of some vast national conspiracy.

we abandoned Afghanistan? hmm, i would find it very entertaining if you told that to my neighbor. I never said a vast national conspiracy, just hypocrisy by many on the left. No clue of its vastness. :)

you say lies. okay, heres where you're wrong IMO.
lie- 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

I underlined some importance in that definition. Both men/ administrations came to the same conclusions. George Tenet serving under both administrations was feeding basically the same story to both Clinton and Bush. So Bush operated under the assumption that this intelligence was solid after all the previous administration thought so as well. So how can one be called a liar and the other isn't? Its completely fair to say invading Iraq was a bad move for reason X. But saying there was deliberate lying is false. Hmm didn't Britain and Russia come to the same conclusion also?

Anything involved with sex and a person of a celebrity status is going to get attention. If anyone did that it would get equal attention. Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
there is so much hypocrisy though. Bush lied about WMDs is a great example. Clinton made it US policy to achieve regime change in Iraq. he assured everyone that there were WMDs there as well. i don't hear anyone calling Al Gore or Clinton liars. are they absolved of those statements simply because it was a few years earlier?

In the same, it appears Obama is going to have to go through with some decisions made under the Bush administration. There is no clear "breakage" in politics when there is a change of President.
 

Armagon917

TOAST
Mar 6, 2008
339
0
0
The Woodlands, Texas
In the same, it appears Obama is going to have to go through with some decisions made under the Bush administration. There is no clear "breakage" in politics when there is a change of President.

Right on, thats why I wish him luck. I believe we should give Obama a lot of slack. Lets face it, the middle east is a huge problem that every president here on is going to have to consider and take very seriously. The situation sucks.
 
Last edited:

SlayerDragon

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLADIES
Feb 3, 2003
7,666
0
36
40
Right on, thats why I wish him luck. I believe we should give Obama a lot of slack. Lets face it, the middle east is a huge problem that every president here on is going to have to consider and take very seriously. The situation sucks.

A problem largely of our our creation and continuation.
 

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41
(Just a FYI and not being argumentative)

There is a particular problem with the molecules used in medecine or anything used in biology for that matter. Sometimes, it isn't possible to make an alternative because nothing else produces the desired effect.

When it comes to chemistry, a changed atom makes a totally different molecule. That much is obvious. But, when you get into biochemistry, a simple change in the *shape* of a molecule can make it something completely different.

For example, some molecules found in lemons and oranges are in fact the "same" molecule but with a different shape. Here's a good link that explains the basics :
http://americanhistory.si.edu/kids/molecule/04exp.htm

Yes, indeed. You know I just have a problem with how they do it now. If they come up with a fair system I'm all for it. I guess I harped the original formula stuff a bit much. Its just that is what it was all about originally and to stay true to that I believe some kind of system needs to be set up that is fair and makes clear who actually did the work is all. However that is done that gets to that goal I'm fine with. Well unless it doesn't actually make this cheaper for me. :eek: I hope I didn't make the impression I was against medicine being cheaper. Kinda read through my posts again and I kinda saw that message on the read through. That wasn't intended at all.
 

Armagon917

TOAST
Mar 6, 2008
339
0
0
The Woodlands, Texas
A problem largely of our our creation and continuation.

Well we broke a government in the region that was functional even if it was very Stalin-esque. Largely implies too much on our part. There is a lot of tribal warfare there and was the arm pit of the world before we got there. I'm not saying we didn't lend a hand. Lets just be clear Iraq wasn't this peaceful place with green hills, rainbows and smiling faces before we got there. But I like your little snipe at America there. I like how a lot of the rest of the world sits back and lets the problem fester, its much more effective to criticize America and write angry letters to the "evil doers" to let them know just how upset you really are with them.

A friend of mine had all of his pens/ markers stolen in Afghanistan by young kids and teens. They literally thought it was magic that it, the pen, a sharpie in particular would produce black lines. Vicious fighting ensued over the sharpies until my friend could come back with more... :eek: I was told the look was pure wide eyed jaw dropping facination. To win hearts and minds should we drop spray paint?
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Stocks at 12 year lows. I think Obama is onto something with what he's been doing lately! He's really turning the economy around!! :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.