Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 23:41:17

new low in poll numbers for Christie in NJ

by **Bucky** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:23:45

Jamie's story above exhibits why I have chosen the strategy I have concerning mortgage v. investments. If my company was to tank, I don't want to have to sell my house to survive. The dude who did my paint scraping over the summer was using LICENSED ELECTRICIANS and paying them 10 bucks an hour to scrape exterior paint in 90 degree weather. You never think it can be you, but who knows. And of course if you're investing vs. paying down the mortgage, you have that to fall back on. But in the case where you lose your job in the context of an entire economic slowdown, you'd be selling off your investments when their value is down.

by **pacino** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 15:21:10

Oregon Gov finally resigned.

by **pacino** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 17:05:14

Rand Paul lied about having degrees in biology and english from Baylor.

by **swishnicholson** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 17:10:43

pacino wrote:Rand Paul lied about having degrees in biology and english from Baylor.

Well, not really.

by **td11** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 17:11:27

how the fuck did he get into medical school?

by **pacino** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 19:36:20

His MCATS were good and I guess Duke didn't equine a bachelor's degree

by **pacino** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 19:51:19

swishnicholson wrote:
pacino wrote:Rand Paul lied about having degrees in biology and english from Baylor.

Well, not really.

he stated in an interview that he had degrees. he studied but didn't have degrees. you usually remember the distinction.

by **Bucky** » Sat Feb 14, 2015 23:09:19

Is it any wonder he believed in a 'trickle down economy'??

by **swishnicholson** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 13:53:38

pacino wrote:
swishnicholson wrote:
pacino wrote:Rand Paul lied about having degrees in biology and english from Baylor.

Well, not really.

he stated in an interview that he had degrees. he studied but didn't have degrees. you usually remember the distinction.

Unless your'e seeing a different story, I saw one where he had an interchange about economics with someone at a conference . During this, they were both pointing out that they had difficulty with the the concept being discussed. Yes, Paul stated (first) that he had degrees in English and biology, and later reduced this to just biology in a subsequent exchange, compared to the other guy who had a degree in economics but was still having trouble with the concept. But the point Rand was jokingly making was that his academic credentials were not up to the task, rather than trying to overstate them in a way to falsely convey competence or training.

Yes, he only studied English in college, with no degree, and has no undergrad biology degree, just a medical degree (which is close enough to biology for me). He shouldn't have used those terms, but given the intent, the forum (not a resume, not a campaign site, not an interview) and their relative truthiness, I think it's a pretty venial sin. There are certainly plenty other things that Paul should be called on before that.

link

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 21:29:32

swishnicholson wrote:
pacino wrote:
swishnicholson wrote:
pacino wrote:Rand Paul lied about having degrees in biology and english from Baylor.

Well, not really.

he stated in an interview that he had degrees. he studied but didn't have degrees. you usually remember the distinction.

Unless your'e seeing a different story, I saw one where he had an interchange about economics with someone at a conference . During this, they were both pointing out that they had difficulty with the the concept being discussed. Yes, Paul stated (first) that he had degrees in English and biology, and later reduced this to just biology in a subsequent exchange, compared to the other guy who had a degree in economics but was still having trouble with the concept. But the point Rand was jokingly making was that his academic credentials were not up to the task, rather than trying to overstate them in a way to falsely convey competence or training.

Yes, he only studied English in college, with no degree, and has no undergrad biology degree, just a medical degree (which is close enough to biology for me). He shouldn't have used those terms, but given the intent, the forum (not a resume, not a campaign site, not an interview) and their relative truthiness, I think it's a pretty venial sin. There are certainly plenty other things that Paul should be called on before that.

link

I /think/ the Baylor Biology and English degrees hullabaloo first arose from claims in his website bio/credentials when he ran for senator (2010 IIRC). I also recall something about him practicing without board certification. His reply to the latter was along the line of "regulations impacting my ability to earn a living practicing my profession" and in protest started his own medical certification board. Keep in mind, he is/was an eye surgeon.

* (Also keep in mind, staunch libertarians object to medical licensing and certification, holding Friedman's stance that they are "an undue burden on the free market". So Paul's actions shouldn't have been surprising.)

by **TomatoPie** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:50:59

Vaguely political facts

1950: 1 out of 5000 people worldwide died of combat
2010: 1 out of 300,000

Global per capita military spending has declined by one-third over the past 25 years

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:20:58

TomatoPie wrote:Vaguely political facts

1950: 1 out of 5000 people worldwide died of combat

gonna have to see a source and method on that. Seems wildly high, in 1950.

Global per capita military spending has declined by one-third over the past 25 years

nukes are emeffing expensive weapons systems

by **slugsrbad** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:36:21

I love data without context! How much of the post-WWII spending was counted as military spending? Was the Marshall Plan counted? How about the GI Bill? Also, does the worldwide died of combat include those who died as a result of injuries sustained in prior combat, or is it active combat? For example, finally succumbing to an injury sustained in WWII or activity in Iraq?

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:03:25

have to add that I am persuaded by the Steven Pinker crowd that, on the numbers, the world has moved in the direction of being less blood-drenched. Feels like the thirst is still amongst us, but the ability to quench it seems to be constrained by improved communications. Wanton killing seems to abhor witnesses.*

Here's hoping that disgust and contempt for perpetrators is powerful enough to diminish it much, much further.

*None of this is to suggest that the world is more wisely ruled nowadays

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:16:56

I don't disagree, but these things tend to go in cycles and the next world conflagration will no doubt be the bloodiest ever.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 13:25:57

JFLNYC wrote:I don't disagree, but these things tend to go in cycles and the next world conflagration will no doubt be the bloodiest ever.

wielding really world-devastating firepower seems like it requires a heavy-duty nation-state or 3 with a motive or motives to cut loose & the power and/or authority to do so.

I could see some kind of mankind-enhanced biological scourge by accident doing a number on a lot of the population, or widespread drought conditions devastating already fragile populations, but not a calculated bombing-shooting wipeout.

by **Bucky** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 13:54:26

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 14:00:39

Bucky wrote:

by **phatj** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 14:23:03

Harvey Danger was on to that in like '98

Archived

Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)