Texas miracle?

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,028
Media
29
Likes
7,893
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You've got to put a bit of effort into it. I didn't use thinkprogress.
Yes, I know that you didn't use ThinkProgress. And since the burden of proof is on you to refute the documentation that I cited, don't expect others to do research for you. If you found those figures on the sites to which you linked, why did you not provide specific links to the pages that provide them? At this point, I have nothing but your word for it that you did not simply make them up.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yes, I know that you didn't use ThinkProgress. And since the burden of proof is on you to refute the documentation that I cited, don't expect others to do research for you. If you found those figures on the sites to which you linked, why did you not provide specific links to the pages that provide them? At this point, I have nothing but your word for it that you did not simply make them up.


At this point sir, you are attempting to refute me, and the burden of proof is upon you.

But, for arguments sake, I will relocate the specific pages for your perusal.

Rick Perry And Texas Job Numbers
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,028
Media
29
Likes
7,893
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At this point sir, you are attempting to refute me, and the burden of proof is upon you. But, for arguments sake, I will relocate the specific pages for your perusal.

Rick Perry And Texas Job Numbers
Was that so difficult to do? Why did you not do it before--especially since, as I can now see, you were simply copying materials from that page verbatim? Why quote a source and then, rather than cite that source, cite some other, highly unspecific ones--and then, when asked for specifics, reply with snark and an intimation of your superior research efforts ("You've got to put a bit of effort into it. I didn't use thinkprogress") before finally providing them? The only plausible explanation that I see is that you wanted to give the impression that you had done original research through the mass of figures on the site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, when in fact you were merely copying the words of someone who, as he says on the page that you now cite, "spent about 4 hours digging through raw data to write this post."

As for the burden of proof, I made certain claims supported by materials that I quoted from ThinkProgress, which was itself citing Jared Bernstein. You replied, initially, with claims for which you provided no specific documentation. That left you with the burden of substantiating those claims. It is not an adequate reply to my claims simply to produce a bunch of figures without specifically identifying their source.

Anyway, on substantive points, I find the blogger that you now cite more credible than Jared Bernstein, who provides no sources for his claims. If Bernstein is indeed talking out of his arse, he should be called on it. BUT the fact that you misrepresent materials copied from another source as the product of your own researches shows you to be entirely untrustworthy.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Read it and weep:
Rick Perry’s Texas is Ross Perot’s Mexico come north. Through a range of enticements we more commonly associate with Third World nations — low wages, no benefits, high rates of poverty, scant taxes, few regulations and generous corporate subsidies — the state has produced its own “giant sucking sound,” attracting businesses from other states to a place where workers come cheap.

The sad facts behind Rick Perry’s Texas miracle


 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Was that so difficult to do? Why did you not do it before--especially since, as I can now see, you were simply copying materials from that page verbatim? Why quote a source and then, rather than cite that source, cite some other, highly unspecific ones--and then, when asked for specifics, reply with snark and an intimation of your superior research efforts ("You've got to put a bit of effort into it. I didn't use thinkprogress") before finally providing them? The only plausible explanation that I see is that you wanted to give the impression that you had done original research through the mass of figures on the site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, when in fact you were merely copying the words of someone who, as he says on the page that you now cite, "spent about 4 hours digging through raw data to write this post."

Actually, while posting that from my phone, It would not let me add quotation marks, some sort of software glitch I'm sure. But, again, if you would look you would see the post(s) immediately following that one you will see where I mentioned that it was not my words I posted. Seriously?


As for the burden of proof, I made certain claims supported by materials that I quoted from ThinkProgress, which was itself citing Jared Bernstein. You replied, initially, with claims for which you provided no specific documentation. That left you with the burden of substantiating those claims. It is not an adequate reply to my claims simply to produce a bunch of figures without specifically identifying their source.

Maybe it wasnt as specific as you would have liked, but I DID cite the source.


Anyway, on substantive points, I find the blogger that you now cite more credible than Jared Bernstein, who provides no sources for his claims. If Bernstein is indeed talking out of his arse, he should be called on it. BUT the fact that you misrepresent materials copied from another source as the product of your own researches shows you to be entirely untrustworthy.

I NEVER misrepresented copied materials as my own, and for you to accuse me is a representation of stupidity and laziness on your part.
 

B_jeepguy2

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
977
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
113
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Hmmmm...
Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deconstructing Reagan: conservative ... - Google Books

"If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so".


See I totally agree with Ronald Reagan. Why should the Feds tell me who I have to rent or sell my house to. This is an infringement on private property rights. Do I own the house or do the Feds own it? It seems to me that if the Government can tell me who I have to rent or sell my property to I don't own the damn property anymore.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
See I totally agree with Ronald Reagan. Why should the Feds tell me who I have to rent or sell my house to. This is an infringement on private property rights. Do I own the house or do the Feds own it? It seems to me that if the Government can tell me who I have to rent or sell my property to I don't own the damn property anymore.

I suppose if you had a business and the government said you cannot fire a woman if she get's pregnant and goes on maternity leave or if a Negro or Latin or Jew applied for a job you could not turn them down because of their race or religion it isn't the government's job to tell you you can't. It's not their damn business anyway.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I suppose if you had a business and the government said you cannot fire a woman if she get's pregnant and goes on maternity leave or if a Negro or Latin or Jew applied for a job you could not turn them down because of their race or religion it isn't the government's job to tell you you can't. It's not their damn business anyway.


agreed.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,643
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I suppose if you had a business and the government said you cannot fire a woman if she get's pregnant and goes on maternity leave or if a Negro or Latin or Jew applied for a job you could not turn them down because of their race or religion it isn't the government's job to tell you you can't. It's not their damn business anyway.


So why stop there? Let's go back to segregated rest rooms and drinking fountains. It's my business, why should the government be able to tell me how to run it?

Go ahead, agree with that one too.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
So why stop there? Let's go back to segregated rest rooms and drinking fountains. It's my business, why should the government be able to tell me how to run it?

Go ahead, agree with that one too.

Further we would need to establish some sort of ethnic purity panel that would classify all the classifications society would need at birth. We wouldn't want anyone thinking they could 'pass'. Everyone would know their classification and place in society. If anyone has seen Gattaca this would be the goal.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
326
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
See I totally agree with Ronald Reagan. Why should the Feds tell me who I have to rent or sell my house to. This is an infringement on private property rights. Do I own the house or do the Feds own it? It seems to me that if the Government can tell me who I have to rent or sell my property to I don't own the damn property anymore.

Because it's the law:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").


Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
175
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm really dumbfounded that there are still some people who think business owners should be able to turn away someone simply because of their skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I really do not know how to respond. If you want a business license, you have to abide by the law. Sorry.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,028
Media
29
Likes
7,893
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Watch Governor Thickskull respond to a question about the inefficacy of abstinence-only sex education (interview with Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune, October 15, 2010):Partial transcription:
Smith: Let me ask you another one here on a different topic, Governor. Why does Texas continue with abstinence education programs when they don't seem to be working? In fact, I think we have the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.

Perry: Abstinence . . . works.

(Laughter from audience.)

Smith: But we have the third-highest teen pregnancy rate among all states in the country. The questioner's point is, it doesn't seem to be working—abstinence education.

Perry: (Stammering a bit.) It works. Maybe it's the way it's being taught or the way it's being applied out there. But the fact is, it is the best form of—to teach our children.

Smith: Can you give me a statistic to suggest it works?

Perry: I'm sorry; I'm just going to tell you from my own personal life: abstinence works!
In trying to find the source of this video, I was led back in time through a chain of pages reproducing it and making various comments (here offered in reverse of the order of discovery):

"We’re not calling you old fashioned, governor, we’re calling you a freakin’ moron." (John Wright, The Dallas Voice, Oct. 16, 2010)

"Perry appears completely unable not only to answer the question but even to think in empirical terms." (Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, Aug. 18, 2011)

"The problem here isn’t just that Perry has the wrong answer. The more meaningful problem is that Perry doesn’t seem to know how to even formulate an answer. He starts with a proposition in his mind (abstinence-only education is effective), and when confronted with evidence that the proposition appears false (high teen-pregnancy rates), the governor simply hangs onto his belief, untroubled by evidence." (Steve Benen Washington Monthly, Aug. 19, 2011)​
One point that is not reflected in these comments is that while Smith is asking Perry about abstinence-only sex education, Perry's replies concern sexual abstinence. (Note the shift in the reference of the pronoun "it" between Smith's second utterance and Perry's reply to it.) Perry seems unable to grasp that these are two distinct questions. It is indisputable that young people who remain virgins will have no pregnancies and no sexually transmitted diseases. This is the fact—the only fact—that Perry has in mind. But it does not follow from this fact that teaching young people no sexual option besides abstinence will prevent or reduce such outcomes. On the contrary, there is evidence that it exacerbates them. To grasp this fact, however, requires a degree of intellectual breadth and complexity that is plainly beyond Perry's capacity.

Incidentally, Texas is actually only fourth among US states in the incidence of teen pregnancy; it is, however, or at least was found in a study by the Guttmacher Institute to be in 2005, third in the incidence of teen births (source). I assume that the difference of ranking in the two figures reflects a lower incidence of abortion in Texas. The report from the Guttmacher Institute (Jan. 26, 2010) includes this comment (bold type added):
The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates [across the US] in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence—and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception—became increasingly widespread and teens’ use of contraceptives declined.​
 
Last edited:

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,052
Media
0
Likes
3,998
Points
333
Location
United States
See I totally agree with Ronald Reagan. Why should the Feds tell me who I have to rent or sell my house to. This is an infringement on private property rights. Do I own the house or do the Feds own it? It seems to me that if the Government can tell me who I have to rent or sell my property to I don't own the damn property anymore.

This kind of argument is complicated because it deals with the issue of civil rights versus civil liberties. I can definitely see what you're saying, but in my opinion protecting these kinds of basic civil rights is more moral and better society than protecting that specific civil liberty.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
This kind of argument is complicated because it deals with the issue of civil rights versus civil liberties. I can definitely see what you're saying, but in my opinion protecting these kinds of basic civil rights is more moral and better society than protecting that specific civil liberty.


I am in complete disagreement with your stance here.
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Any reason why you think you should be able to reject my business because of some random characteristic?

In most businesses that I am aware of selling products or services, the proprietor chooses his/her clients or customers. This may not be concurrent with filling stations or the grocery stores. The majority of businesses have a sign prominently displayed that reads of their right to refuse good and or services to ANYONE. This may pertain to an individual using foul language, someone verbally aggressive, threatening, displaying nudity, and a myriad of other possible reasons.

p.s. its nice to see you back, I've noticed you not being around for a few days (although, I have been trying to stay out of the politics forum) Hope all is well.
 

B_jeepguy2

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
977
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
113
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm really dumbfounded that there are still some people who think business owners should be able to turn away someone simply because of their skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I really do not know how to respond. If you want a business license, you have to abide by the law. Sorry.

There are ways to get around this law and company HR departments do it every day. I have a friend who ran a staffing agency and made a very good living screening applicants for a Fortune 500 company. They would have him post the job description without the name of the company given. He would then screen the applicants and only send applicants that fit the exact criteria that they wanted for an interview with the company.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I'm really dumbfounded that there are still some people who think business owners should be able to turn away someone simply because of their skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I really do not know how to respond. If you want a business license, you have to abide by the law. Sorry.

Suppose the league of reformed pedophiles wanted to stay in your hotel?

The Bambi Deer Club Slaughter's association annual riflefest.

The Pro-life Annual Convention.

Pat Buchanan, David Duke &

The KKK

Would you be happy to have these people, legally entitled, to be at your hotel, & have them advertise the fact, knowing that your business would forever be associated with them?

Here's the funny thing... In the UK, the Left instigated all these laws. Unfortunately for them, it meant that they had to let people that they disagreed with into state owned properties ( because of course most business owners are capitalists), so...

...to get around letting people they disagreed with into PUBLIC OWNED properties... they would threaten public disturbances - thus using the threat of a riot or protest (which they had organised themselves!) - to stop groups & their supporters legitimately using facilities that they had in fact helped fund.

What a sickening bunch of shits!

A true democracy would encourage a pro abortion rally in a hotel one week, & a pro life the next week - WITHOUT A FUSS (hey you guys had your say already etc).

If public property can be used in such a bastardized way - there is no reason why private property should not - full stop.
 
Last edited: