Pangloss

Communicating badly and then acting smug when you are misunderstood is not cleverness. Anyway, where I might agree a LITTLE with some conservatives here is that Wikipedia probably has a little more liberal influence than conservative influence, due mainly to the wider acceptance of high-tech amongst the younger generation, which trends left. But I don't think this is really a problem, because the great thing about the Wikipedia is that bias tends to stand out and be corrected by others. That's part of the genius of the idea.

You don't. But a scholarly approach will typically shed more valuable information on a subject than the usual local news story.

I disagree with their analysis. "Yo" is a pejorative. And quite frankly I'm not sure we need additional pronouns for every invented gender. They aren't "transgender", they're either male or female. I'm hip to being sensitive to people with psychological disorders, but I don't really see it as a problem in need of a solution.

I'm confused how that would differ from the rotating regionals concept.

I'm not really interested in faith-based emotional appeal, but thanks anyway.

The shortened cycle? I see your point there, but I'm concerned that it also takes power away from people. When you only have a few days to think about it, you might tend to grab on to what little you currently know. In a longer cycle you have more time to get to know the candidates, with "in-depth" interviews, background stories, and (when you get a round tuit) read up on the candidate's voting record. I favored the one-big-primary approach earlier, but the more I think about it the more I like the "rotating regionals" concept.

None in my case. In your case you get a significant say on February 5th. You Tennesseeans have 68 delegates to commit, which would be a respectable number if not for the fact that California and New York got tired of being afterthoughts and moved theirs up to the same day. Now you're irrelevent again. Ironic, given that the whole point of Super Tuesday was to give the southern states electoral relevence. (The mandate the national party offices laid down was that the states could not move their primaries ahead of February 5th. So of course 20-some states promptly moved their primaries up to February 5th, and now we have a 3-week nomination race instead of a 6-month nomination race. Sometimes you just have to laugh.)

Don't let me change the subject here, but I couldn't help but ask about this. Aspartame actually gets around the sugar problem for diabetics? That's really interesting, I had no idea. Does sucralose offer the same benefit? (I noticed you said "diet soda" but I think that's still mostly NutraSweet, right?) Just curious, thanks.

(lol) Uh oh, pee building up again.... Hey Agent, I think that budget doesn't include Iraq, btw. I think that was a supplemental bill.

Interesting. I've seen a lot of talk about delegate counts elsewhere as well. Those counts could become critical if it comes down to a brokered convention. I know I've been beating this drum a lot (the one I'm about to mention again), but one thing I'm starting to wonder is whether the issue of primaries that don't count (because they were moved up) might come up again at a brokered convention. There's no question that political operatives will look at the delegate counts from the uncounted states (like MI and FL) and see if the candidates would have finished in the same order if those states had been counted. If the answer to that question is "no", it could be a whole new ballgame. I almost feel sorry for the press at how badly their decision not to report that story will bite them on the ass if that happens.

I appreciate that and I respect your opinion on it. There, iNow, I'm all out of pee.

Bolds are mine, to answer your question: More to the point, all he has to do is say "yes I realize that other funding could be cut to pay for the war, so it was incorrect to state that we cannot afford it".

I agree with The Tree. But if I can toss another option out there, there are a few programs that actually aid in HTML editing in a much more efficient way than Word, highlighting your code tags and interpreting the HTML to give you WYSIWYG view mode, for example, and still don't cost anything. My personal favorite is Visual Web Developer from Microsoft (Dreamweaver is still better at the WYSIWYG interpretation, but it isn't free, or at least it wasn't the last time I checked). You can download VWD here: http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/Default.aspx

Off-topic and wildly speculative posts focuing on Microsoft's ulterior motives have been deleted. It was either that or move the thread to pseudoscience and speculation. You wanna be lumped in with the 9/11 conpiracy theorists, fine, but this was intended as a help thread.

Ugh. Thanks for the note about the YouTube video but I'm closing this thread before it "takes off" again. (lol)

I recognize that point, but the point I was refuting from ecoli was that money spent on Iraq is, specifically, in and of itself, causing the deficit. That point is not supported by what you're saying above.

There are two points that I think you owe me acknowledgement on, just as I've acknowledged your points (such as the fact that we're spending way too much money on Iraq), before I will drop this: 1) There is a valid point to be acknowledged here about responsibility and international perception. If you want to disagree with its importance, fine, but you can at least acknowledge my opinion. You think the economic impact outweighs the responsibility and perception issues, and/or that we cannot afford it, great, more power to you. I disagree. 2) I repeat: But in the end, a dollar spent in Iraq has exactly the same impact on the deficit as a dollar spent on Aunt Edna's peanut farm. The DEFICIT. You know, the thing YOU BROUGHT UP. If you want to talk about wider economic consequences, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about two-faced neocons, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about increases in spending and their impact in various areas, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. Then when I reply on that subject, you act like you never said it, and spin my reply to mean something you know full well I didn't mean.

What brought up this discussion was a point I raised in response to iNow saying that I believe we have an obligation to continue to fund Iraq's economic recovery after the majority of our troops pull out and we cease broad enforcement of the peace there. I was talking about obligations and international perceptions and fighting the Great Game on the world stage. Ecoli raised economics, stating that he doesn't believe we can afford it, and I've refuted that point -- certainly we spend a lot of money, certainly we need to spend less, but it's erroneous to state -- as Ecoli did -- that we cannot afford it, or that Iraq *itself* is causing the budget deficit. Any number of budgetary items could be construed to be "causing the deficit". Wrong, I've supported his having this opinion in my responses. I've simply pointed out that it does not provide objective grounds for stating that we cannot afford to pay for Iraq, which is an accurate observation. Quite right, it most certainly did not, and it absolutely should have. We were told that it would cost -- what was it, a hundred billion? Two hundred at the most? It's outrageous. Unbelievable. Ridiculous. Insert your favorite adjective here. But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Rather than throwing straw men around, how about enlightening us with your position, iNow? If the Iraqis met our deadlines (as you described earlier) and we pulled out troops, would you then cut them off cold, or continue to offer financial assistance? I find it difficult to believe that you would be opposed to spending federal funds on such a progressive cause. I've no idea if this applies to you or not, but I'll bet a lot of liberals are being conspicuously silent on this issue because they get to use it either way later on. If we pull out and cut them off, they can say that we should not have cut them off, and once again we've flouted international consensus. If we pull out and keep paying, they can criticize how that money is spent and if the violence returns, they can say that we're paying for violence. Apf. Whatever you say, Mr. Pot.

Well I give you credit for consistency. I imagine that if I raised the spectre of the new economic stiumulous package, which if applied quarterly as some lawmakers have requested could easily cost in excess of what we're spending in Iraq, you would shrug and say that you disagree with that spending as well. But it's quite relevent -- some people want money spent over here, others want it spent over there. But in the end, a dollar spent in Iraq has exactly the same impact on the deficit as a dollar spent on Aunt Edna's peanut farm. I put it in big bold, red letters so you don't miss the point this time. In response to your reply regarding changing the subject, ecoli, we aren't discussing economics, we're discussing responsibility and world politics. You don't feel we need to do anything further to help Iraq. That's your opinion and more power to you, but I've shown that there are consequences for that action. It's not a simple matter of economics, but if economics are a concern, we CAN afford it, and I've backed up that statement as well.

Or one super-duper-conducting Supercollider? (hehe, sorry)

I didn't say that it did. Ecoli and I weren't discussing military action, we were discussing economic action following main military withdrawl from Iraq. What I was discussing is very different from what conservatives generally want at the moment, as I said in my last post. Of course I do, and I've responded to it on that basis. Whether you feel this spending is the correct spending is a matter of personal opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. But there is no objective basis for manifest agreement here, as you claim by raising the "cable television" concept. It's a matter of judgement, weighing the cost of international disparagement against the cost of paying these bills. I've demonstrated why that's not the case, and you've not refuted the point.

No, it's spin. The fact is that the budget is in the red. The spin comes in when you declare that any one aspect of the budget is being funded by debt. The budget exceeds earnings, and it is therefore being funded by debt. By what logic do you isolate Iraq from the rest? The fact that it's disliked? I can name $500 billion in spending right now I think is wrong. The fact that it's new? Do you have any idea how much new spending went into the 2007 budget? By your reasoning I could pick any spending or collection of spending in the neighborhood of $400 billion and then make the claim that "unless we change the way <those programs> are funded, the future is going to have to absorb a huge deficit". You don't want to pay for the war anymore. I got it. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's just not that simple. One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet. We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy. Liberals want us to pull out and pay, apologizing and begging forgiveness (Rocky says, "That trick never works!"). Conservatives want us to pull out and NOT pay, telling the world to shove it. Frankly they're both wrong. We pull out AND we pay, and we do that not because it's an apology and not even, in the end, because it's the moral right, but because that's how we get back on top of the game. We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I think you should acknowledge the point I'm making about international disagreement, because it's one thing to say that we shouldn't do it because it's expensive, and yet another to stick your head in the sand about what the consequences of that action are going to be. Quite right. They also don't want to raise taxes to pay for increased defense spending, education, social security, etc etc etc. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Whether it is spent on the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan or Old Widow Jamison's frost-damaged Mulberry bushes is irrelevent. Yes, or about 3-4 months' GDP. Incidentally, I see our post-departure "debt" as something in the neighborhood of $200-300 billion. That's what I think we should spend on Iraqi infrastructure over the next 4-5 years. About 10x NASA's budget over the same span, or about half what we spend in one year on Defense. Incidentally, you realize that that's what's going to happen, right? You're pretty much whistling in the wind here. This will be more or less automatic, regardless of who becomes president. Don't be inflamatory. I haven't suggested an open spigot. What I advocate during Iraqi reconstruction (post US main departure) is responsible (fully accounted) spending on Iraqi infrastructure and rebuilding projects, gradually decreasing over time and being replaced by investment and loans. Is that adjusted for inflation? I'll assume it is. That's an interesting statistic. Are you unhappy with our investment there? It seems like quite a success story to me. What's the problem? No more so than any other aspect of our ridiculously out of control budget. Quite right. Of course it does. And my point is that this is irrelevent. As I said, all spending over earnings is bad.

I'd really love to answer your questions, but I've got to go through at least another dozen dumpsters tonight to feed my 13 starving children, just like everyone else. Where you guys find time to talk about politics in these desperate and dreadful times is sure beyond me!

That's not true, ecoli, and you're avoiding the question. If you want to state that the entire budget is operating in the red, that is truth. To state that we're funding the war on debt is deliberately misleading, because the war only represents a fraction of the budget, and a tiny percentage of GDP, as you well know. So when I read something I like that I have to question whether your purpose is to discuss truth or to sell me something. Want to try again?

Who says we can't afford it? The annual cost of Iraq has been less than the budget deficit for the entire time. All we're really saying there is that we don't want to tighten the belt to fight a war. That should tell us that we shouldn't be fighting that war in the first place, but we are fighting it, so shouldn't we do what it takes to pay for it, instead of just pretending we can't afford it?