dwar0123

Increase demand for treasure bonds doesn't increase the number of treasure bonds issued, it lowers the interest rate paid out and consequently decreases the future number of bonds issued. The government is only losing once here :)

With subscription rates being what they are, the density of subscribers is such that delivering papers via anything but a car is untenable.

In the way they were intended, they likely mean the same. However, if you want to come up with a continuing comment. What follows from "Go" can be a lot stronger without sounding silly. 1. Assad must go, lets get a CIA operation going to assassinate him. 2. Assad must step aside, lets hope this comment convinces him to do so.

You really asking this question? On 9/11?

That is a rather bold statement that runs counter to my understanding of history. I rather thought it was almost always the guy with a thousand determined bastards who generally manages to subjugate entire populations. It is amazing how supportive a population tends to be around people with weapons who have demonstrated a willingness to use them. History is mostly stories of how people do exactly this. Genghis Khan, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, the feudal system in general. In fact, Assad would have long ago suppressed this civil war if not for outside support. Admittedly support from one of our most hated enemies.

This is a peeve that has long been a pet of mine but I am trying to let him go. Even on the rare occasions the 'loser' acknowledged their mistake, I was never better off for it. An explanation of why that includes a couple of great Ted talks! http://blog.ted.com/2013/08/05/the-upside-of-losing-an-argument-andor-being-wrong/

If the lesson is about learning to use the computer, he should fail. I understand that the story is making a point, perhaps a valid one, but it is absurd to think that we would ever get to the point where adults would be confused about a first grader solving problems in their head and inadvertently failing them for it. While absurdity can enhance a point, such stories as this undermine the point; by being so easily dismissed as absurd.

Well that story took some unexpected tangents.

This kind of act is all about tweaking someone's nose. It's crass and upsetting by design and if people judge that the cause isn't worth the discomfort they disagree with the act even if they agree with the cause. Sometimes you just gotta tweak someone's nose though and there will be a lot of that in these games. A lot. And I look forward to it.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1nd2hp2sdp]133|100[/hv] 1nt = 15-17 1st double = Single suited hand(playing don't) 2♥=transfer 2nd double = ???

For the same reason that we would probably both be worried about the definition of a 'good' education by a religious fanatic. We disagree on some fairly fundamental stuff and I would worry that your gun loving small government world view would influence what you would consider a good education. This may be an unfounded fear, perhaps our definition of a good education is very similar, but I would be worried until shown otherwise.

Your definition of "good" would probably worry me.

People who can't park deserve our contempt but being a jerk about it isn't making the world a better place.

People who don't care enough about something to google it, but care enough to complain about it on the internet.

Someone else was suggesting that sections be established after scoring, in such a way that each top player has their own section, which I think we both agree is a bad idea. I favor keeping the sections established at the beginning. And yep, suggesting that a section only be scored within its section.

There is something icky about dividing into sections after the fact, A better solution might be to not score across sections. There are certainly reasons to score across sections when there are overall awards, as you are actually competing against everyone. But they don't apply here. Make each section their own little game, that way comparing percentages across different sections is far less valid. 15 minimum per section, stratification, remove the 48 limit and no scoring across sections = everyone wins!

I love Heinlein, his world view is very attractive, but not very practical. It is something, the idea of people solving their own problems, but that generally requires that people are better then they actually are. Lazarous long solving his own problems, sure, but most people are not so wise and I am not sure I want the general public to take it upon themselves to decide willy nilly who shall live and who shall die. In real life, people make mistakes, lots of mistakes and the thing about mistakes is you don't usually know you are making it when you make it. Some people are skeptical of their own beliefs, but most are not and it is handy for Rico that Heinlein was the author because in someone else's story Rico would be the clueless villain who murdered the wrong guy.

What examples? And btw, communication is a two way process. I try to be very careful in my reading of peoples post and respond with integrity and honesty to their intended point. If I am misreading your intent, the problem does not necessarily lie with me, you may need to be more clear. If all you mean is that you object to people with to much power. Fine, that is a tautology, a meaningless thing to say, how could anyone ever disagree. Whatever. Edit: "Bernanke for example" Pretty sure Bernanke isn't an academic.

If they are not exploiting the public, why is he objecting to their control over society? Don't buy into his nonsense. What control over society are they suppose to have, given their near unanimity on the subject of climate change, how is there so little political will to do something about it? About their only power is to publish an endless stream of papers on the subject and watch as the politicians do nothing about it. No risk, the careers of those caught committing fraud in their research is seriously damaged and many academics fail to ever get their research funded, it is a very tough field, hardly risk free.

You care to defend your inclusion of academics among the non risk takers exploiters of the general public? Typical income as compared to how hard they worked(effort) Ratio of successful academics vs unsuccessful ones(risk) Contribution to society. For persons equally qualified, their typical income in Academia vs the private sector. The absurdity of their inclusion is such that I can't help but feel that you are in fact biased against them.

I am sure Weiner wishes he had no personal exposure. But seriously, including academics? Never would have considered academia a field rife with people making a quick buck at the expense of others. Every field has its leaches and bad apples but when I think of a field that such people flock to, academics not so much. I get that you have a thing against educated people. I even get why.

What is this nonesense about video game violence that you are trying to lay at my feet? If you think I just proved wrong those that vociferously maintain that video games have no effect on attitudes about violence then frankly you just proved that the opposing side is illiterate. Well, proved you are anyway. Really, using bridge as a metaphor; on a bridge forum, and someone calls bridge a violent video game.

So, you can take a finesse which due to your practice and counting you figure will work 75% of the time. Success means you both live. Failure means you die. Or you can go up with the Ace. It is easy to win real life double dummy after the fact. But single dummy, I think I will go with the safety play.

When the majority of the American people don't get the president they wanted, that is when our "noble experiment" has failed and the Republic is lost. What part of this don't you understand? About the only thing that Obama has done to this country that could be construed as undermining the noble experiment is not rolling back much of the Bush administrations ironically named patriot act powers and failing to close Bush's offshore no judicial process prisons.

Blackshoe is under the mistaken impression that his beliefs are equivalent to the beliefs of the majority of the voting public, despite the explicit evidence demonstrated in November. I like to think I at least had the decency to believe that the majority were wrong and we got what we deserved when they re-elected Bush to a second term. I don't mistake losing an election with winning an election. Not entirely sure how anyone does.