StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) The problem with his statement was that he ignored 99% of what creates a business and praised the 1% society provides (teachers/roads/etc) all while ignoring that the business owner still pays for that 1%, so it's not like some free service he/she got. But the business owner can only operate his successful business because of the roads and infrastructure and research and education that are in place. It's a symbiotic relationship. At the bare minimum, government (fed, state, local) provides ~40% GDP. That is simply direct budget spending and doesn't take into account the benefits of things like functional roadways and airports, reliable judicial systems, police and an educated populace. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USrn http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history This is a false history of the development of the internet. I hope you're not relying on that really inaccurate, widely refuted (including by the people he cited) WSJ editorial from a month or so ago. The government's development of the initial concepts stretches throughout the entire history of the internet up through the commercialization in the early 90's. The government has heavy involvement in why the internet is what it is instead of a a bunch of little Compuserve-esque domains and why there's a "World Wide Web."

It means nothing except the deep philosophical difference between yours and his worldview, got it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) The only meaning behind his statement was a self-serving load of garbage that literally ignores what the individual citizens have done to improve their stations in their lives in order to take credit for it. It doesn't mean anything. You're free to disagree, but it means something. Your statement did not. Al Gore never claimed he invented the internet, that's something conservatives invented and the media uncritically repeated. and actually, the internet is a great example of government-funded R&D that leads to massive economic expansion. So it only makes Obama's point, which is that government plays a critical role in the economy. Always has, always will.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) As is "You didn't build this". "there is no government without citizens" is a tautological statement. It doesn't tell me anything. "You didn't build [the infrastructure necessary for the success of your business]" is not tautological and, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, makes a point on the necessity of social organization and cooperation as opposed to the Lone Individual mythos prevalent in this country. You may not agree with the point of his speech, but your statement still have no meaning while his did.

That is a true but meaningless statement.

Money you were able to earn because of prior investment in infrastructure and government services, mainly law & order. Absent government, your earnings would likely be far, far less. I have no problem saying that public and private sectors are a symbiotic relationship that strengthen each other.

It's not impossible to quantify or prove. Look up NIH funding levels, read the medical-economic papers published on the issue. The government provides fully a third of all medical research funding in this country, much of it going into the basic research that companies do not otherwise perform. It's the same "you didn't build that" argument that Obama correctly leaned on: government provides infrastructure and support necessary for businesses to operate on a regional, national and global level. Highways and bridges are comparable to basic medical (and physics, chemistry, biology, etc. etc.) research that is almost completely funded or performed by government these days. Basic research is simply not really done by private companies on their own these days. For a while, you had places like Bell Labs on the tech side of things, but even those are gone now. Private companies focus on developmental research necessary to bring things to market, but they aren't performing the basic research with 20-30+ year timelines before marketability (if ever) because companies don't invest in that kind of R&D. And without that critical research funded by NIH, private companies don't have anything to developmentally research.

Why do the Romney campaign and Republicans keep blatantly lying? Because it works. don't worry, the dogwhistling welfare queen-meme is still alive and well! Yeah, I'm sure her cousin told her legit stories about women coming in and telling the nurse all about their welfare babies. Totally believable. Romney campaign alleges that obama is shredding welfare requirements, democrats disagree. Both sides.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 23, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) I already said they contribute. Just not nearly as much as you're trying to make it sound like they do. The issue with this is you can apply your logic/point to ANY industry, yes...governments help allow them to exist, but governments taking control of the industry and destroying the ability to compete/profit is what we're talking about here. Nobody here is pretending, or even trying to say that the government isn't in part responsible for helping create an atmosphere for others to drive massive innovation...but let's not jump the shark here. These companies are on their own...if they try and fail, over and over, they'll go bankrupt, and the government won't do anything to stop that...many pharmacutical and medical device companies have gone bankrupt attempting to innovate, and nobody -- including the government -- saved them. Private companies barely do basic research these days without heavy NIH funding, and it's still mostly done in university labs with heavy NIH funding. Let's not jump the shark and pretend that the government doesn't play a vital role in scientific research and innovation that lays the groundwork for private research and innovation. While pharma companies do take on a lot of risk and expenses bringing a drug to market, it isn't comparable to the decades-if-ever profitable timelines for basic research. My point isn't that pharma companies don't do anything or are only a minor part, just that we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are without government-funded basic research.

Who Drives Innovation?

Who says that this is ok and not dumb?

An awful lot of medical research, especially basic research, is bankrolled by the government, so it's not some sort of free-market innovation paradise in pharma.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 17, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) So now not only do you know their inner most motivations, you just happen to know they are lying as well. You should be a police interrogator or something. Oh man totally shocked to read this: Maybe I really do have some sort of mind-reading abilities!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) If a standard autopsy could check for the kinds of deterioration that has been established for other NFL players, why do they send off for the more detailed analysis? The media reports don't clarify on this, unfortunately. Does not finding these signs on the initial autopsy mean it's likely he didn't have brain damage, or does it just mean that further investigation is needed because it's unlikely to see this in an initial autopsy?

While I'm not particularly optimistic for single-payer in this country any time soon, there's no reason to stop advocating for and discussing it.

The initial autopsy report for Junior Seau shows no signs of drugs or brain damage.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 03:12 PM) Gordon has not been good offensively. No one can dispute that. What Balta is pointing out is you have to prioritize your offseason decisions, and at a traditionally weak offensive position, and considering the defense Gordon seems to play at 2b, replacing him is a fairly low priority. We've got big decisions to make in the starting rotation, as well as at 3b and catcher. Chances are, we will not have adequate resources to make a significant upgrade at 2b; that would be more of a luxury for our Club right now, considering the other issues. I don't disagree with what you're saying here and agree with that summary of Balta's point, but he's taking it a step farther and trying to justify Gordon's horrendous offense.

Opinions can be wrong, I hate that idiom. edit: maybe it's better to say that they can be completely unsupported, unjustified, contradictory to known facts, etc. but someone can still irrationally believe that Tim Tebow is the best QB ever. I don't know if they're "wrong" or just dumb.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Konerko, AJP, Peavy, Thome, Contreras, Dye, Crede, Uribe, Viciedo, Buerhle, Garland, Garcia, Danks, Rios, Dunn just a few players a good part of Soxtalk (me included in a couple) has written off at some point since I've been around. Now its Beckham. This is good news for him. Where's the list of players Soxtalk has written off that have remained bad?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Religion poisons everything. I'm more inclined to think that stupidity poisons everything and that religion is used, more often than not, as post hoc justification for beliefs and not the source of those beliefs. for an example of some hilarious stupidity, check out the latest from NRO! http://wonkette.com/481728/nro-ladies-shou...-made-obama-gay Haha, Obama has daughters! What a f**! Let us block-quote, brothers and sisters, just to ensure we are not taking Herr Williamson out of his proper context! .

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) for some reason I seem to have a tendency to cause a ruckas... [...] All of you are free to continue loving your blessed "Bacon".

Mutant butterflies caused by Fukishima: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/mutant-...aster-1.3909562 No Mothra....yet.

What is this I don't even Turn that frown upside down! That rape was a blessing from God!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Right now, the average #9 hitter in the AL has an OPS of .640. Beckham has been better than that. He's among the worst hitters in baseball if you're compiling the 100 or so worst position playing hitters in baseball and excluding pitchers. This thread exists in the first place because Gordon was supposed to be better than this. He was supposed to be the golden boy. He was supposed to be hitting .300 with 25 HR ever year. He's not. So, rather than focus on what he actually is doing, which is filling a hole cheaply, it's much more fun to say things like "He sucks!". I'm fine with excluding pitchers from the "worst batters" chart.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 22, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) When does school let out in Chicago? Here, school started last week as well, but it lets out in early to mid May. If they make Chicago kids go til May 25 or something, that's pretty bad. "track E" schools are year-round programs now: http://www.cps.edu/Programs/DistrictInitia...ndarTRACK_E.pdf they run until June 17th but have more time off throughout the year. It's the same number of school days in the end.