Pangloss

The version most people are using at the moment is Visual Studio 2008, and it runs fine under Windows 7. You don't have to run it in Windows XP Compatibility Mode. They just released Visual Studio 2010, which, as you might expect, also runs just fine under Windows 7. (2008 ran fine under Vista as well. 2005 had some minor, cosmetic issues with Vista, but the editor and compiler worked fine.)

I'd vote for him just for being intelligent enough to use the word "piste" in a sentence that can't be construed by his opponents to mean that he's unreasonably angry. But seriously, yeah, he seems like a pretty reasonable guy. From my extremely limited perspective, anyway.

Pretty PI, I agree, and good for you.

That was an excellent debate between bascule and ecoli on the complexities of taxation vs spending. It's such a nuanced point and it so quickly runs into emotional zones of contention that sometimes it's hard to get to the meat of the problem, but I thought you both did a great job of that. Two thumbs up. I believe ecoli has a great point in saying that the tea party people need to understand that compromise is the path forward. But bascule has a great point as well when he points out that often what these people tell us is contradictory or nonsensical -- even if it IS coming from ostensibly intelligent people (see below). I don't think that's a contradiction! I think it's a revelation. This is a poll saying that the average tea party supporter has above-average education. It was conducted by CBS News and the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html Tea party supporters are not atypical Americans. I believe we're going through a process. It's a process that's predicated on an historical problem that reached a head with Watergate and has continued for an entire generation. This poll finding exhibits the problem: We're not rooting out the last vestiges of hidden racism or subconscious ideological prejudices. We're grappling with concerns that we wear right on our sleeves: Overworking. Fear of unemployment. Bad diet. Failure to succeed. Getting older. Dealing with rebellious offspring and/or aging parents. These are what fuels this movement. So getting back to what I said earlier, I think both ecoli and bascule are right. What these people are saying is often counter-intuitive and strange when analyzed by people who are more familiar with politics and (especially) scientific thinking. We have to de-code these statements, remove the fear, and find solutions that work for people even if they don't initially appear to be what they asked for. President Obama actually talked about this in his book "The Audacity of Hope". He said: And he goes on to explain exactly how we can do that.

It's interesting that they were saying that in 2006. I had been under the impression that most of that separation sentiment stems from 2007/2008, following the economic meltdown. They seem to make their case, though: Interesting piece.

Yup, that's the only part currently slated for saving, as I understand it. But we'll see how it goes -- Congress hasn't weighed in yet, and this is all part of budget-wrangling, so we could see more changes to the plan, especially as the last shuttle flight looms less than two months before the mid-term election.

I don't believe that was ParanoiA's claim. One clear difference, of course, is that the donor decides where the money goes. But I also question the statement that "government... still needs the lost funds". That is predicated on an assumption that every single penny the government spends is 100% necessary. I also wonder why this issue only comes up now, in a discussion about a conservative donor. If you don't think Oprah deducts her donations, you're mistaken. Shall we downplay her charity as well, since you say that she's simply selecting the recipients of tax-derived benefits? But I think the position is in error anyway, because only a portion of your income is taxed. If I give a million dollars to charity, I may have spent $500,000 less in taxes (by sheltering the mil), but charities have received $500,000 more from me than they would have gotten from the government (if the government were giving the money to charities, which of course is not what happens), and I have $500,000 less to spend on myself than I would have if I had not donated to the charity. So both Rush and Oprah are being magnanimous.

I agree about Tapper, and I've always felt that he's a solid, objective reporter. I actually missed the Walters hosting, but my wife said it was pretty awful. (The sharing of a politics hobby is a mixed blessing, btw. Works okay with her but I know better than to bring it up with her family, who make me look like Al Franken!) That's interesting about Amanpour. Seems like kind of an odd choice but I've felt that ABC is kinda locked in with their roster for a while now. Maybe mixing it up will be a good thing.

Just to add one, last week the President has backed off his earlier stance of closing down manned space flight completely, salvaging key parts of the Constellation program and established a new long-term goal. I'm not completely happy with it, but the logic is sound and the science programs remain intact, and in general it's a step in the right direction.

See? SEE?!?! (grin)

Well IMO there's a deliberate attempt in Stewart's humor to hide an ideological viewpoint behind a thin veneer of false objectivity. I say "thin" for a reason -- they'll joke about it and nod to the critics who call them liberals, but in the end they're telling the audience "just because we're liberal doesn't mean we can't give you the truth", which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that the truth is what they're actually giving people. IMO they have an agenda just like Limbaugh does, and they hide it just like Limbaugh does. (Same deal with Colbert -- it's kind of a "hide it in plain sight" thing. We know that they know that we know that they know they're really liberal, so they're actually supposed to be objective. Kinda twisted, but that's how it seems to me.) I think the only elevations Stewart gets over Limbaugh are (a) he's a good bit more intelligent, and (b) he doesn't promote hatred and intolerance. On the Tivo, waiting for wife to get home (she and I usually watch it together). BTW, what's your take on This Week since George left? I'm still a-boggle over that move. I guess he wanted to stretch/grow/whatever, but GMA? Seriously? Kind of a step down, eh?

Wups, sorry about that.

I suppose it's possible, but he also has a whole thing about directly challenging the idea of common ground. He believes in the fight, in not backing down or compromising in any way. Clinton's statement directly challenges one of Rush Limbaugh's most fundamental principles, which is that if conservatives only fight long and hard enough the liberals will give in because they are weak, stupid, and not well motivated. It's why he never backs down in any way, shape or form. Not ever. The only thing I've ever heard him back down on was admitting his addiction to oxy, which he probably had to do to avoid jail time. One of the most revealing things I remember hearing on his show was that when a caller would say anything grudgingly admiring or even slightly admitting of a liberal position, he would refuse to join them on it. Always deny, always obfuscate, always control the damage, always reverse the blame, and always, always ridicule. It is the partisan's creed.

I read a similar comment somewhere the other day, along the lines of "before President Obama was elected we didn't have all these earthquakes either", I guess in reference to Haiti, China, Chile, etc. ABC News ran a piece on Friday interviewing a geologist (OMG an actual scientist!) saying that the actual number of earthquakes this year is actually quite in line with the normal average number. Just some bad luck in some of their locations, unfortunately. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW I might as well go ahead and post this one here, since it's directly related to Rush Limbaugh. He's apparently involved in a bit of a verbal scuffle with former President Clinton this weekend regarding some statements that were made by each on Friday. Apparently Clinton made a speech on Friday (morning?) on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that in these tense political times Americans should refrain from provoking each other to the level of violence. I thought his comments were very non-specific, and while he did mention the tea party, he was very clear that he felt the reasoning applied to ALL ideological groups and political parties. Limbaugh pounced, declaring that if there is any more violence it will be Clinton's fault. That's pretty nasty stuff, and way over the line, IMO. This ABC News piece has a run-down and Clinton's response to Limbaugh's comments: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rush-limbaugh-comment-doesnt-make-any-sense.html

Just reflecting briefly on the OP, I was a bit surprised to hear that the charge included actual fraud. If they can make that case stick it would seem to be a significant step forward in protecting investors. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this to draw any further conclusions, but it will be interesting to follow.

Well I suppose one's opinion is a matter of fact, in that sense.

He didn't use the word massive, and that does not seem to me to have been his point. He did ask whether we can trust the signs of racism at these events. This appears to be a valid question. No, he's pointing out that some people have pretended to be tea party group members in an attempt to make them look worse than they really are. The Politico article backs this up. It directly refutes, with factual evidence, your statement that it is one person. Does that matter? Not really. But it's not one guy. I'm sure it seems that way. I would just remind you that I voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. I've been very up-front and on-the-record about my mixed, middle-of-the-road position. Here's a little surprise for you: I'm not interested in facts OR spin. When it comes to THIS subforum, what I'm interested in is your opinion. And I intend to do everything I can to make sure that everyone who visits this subforum gets to post their opinions too. Even when some of the members don't like them. Those of you on the left forget that you can't argue with people who agree with you. A discussion forum full of people who agree with each other is completely worthless. You should thank me for supporting and encouraging conservatives to come in here, step up, and let you tell them just how wrong they are.

Right, which would make your statement false. As would these quotes from the same article (as long as we're cherry-picking quotes): So, not one guy. False. And as I said before, beside the point which you seem bound and determined to ignore, which is that both sides can be provocative and demonstrative. That's not what he said.

That's interesting. It sounds like a compromise, and it sounds a bit more like anti-federalism than libertarianism, or perhaps just the reactionary politics of the moment.

Again, beside the point. Also false, according to Politico.

One would certainly think so. That would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion. It's not intended to indicate an entire side's activities.

Some of the behavior is pretty outlandish. But in my opinion the main point here is not that there's ANOTHER group of crazies out there, but rather that the left is just as happy riling people up as the right is. Take a look at this guy -- he's hardly the model of crazy wingnut conspiracy theorist. He's a TEACHER. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/16/teacher-sought-demolish-tea-party-placed-leave-school/ Kudos to him for not throwing punches, but doesn't that support the notion that BOTH ideological camps are riling up the masses to do bad things? I think it does. And that's just one guy -- there are tons of articles about the crashers at Google News. Politico ran a piece today saying that it "fizzled out", but I think that ignores the point -- the fact that people were willing to do that indicates that BOTH sides are hard at work stirring people up to hate one another.

Ugh. (Thanks Timo.)

I'll hold him down if you'll pour the water. I wonder what the numbers 88 and 14 are supposed to be symbolic of.

Can you start a thread on that, jryan? I've been pondering it myself and I think it's worth a discussion of its own.