Page: 1 2 Next »

Paradigm

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Wed May 14, 2014, 10:51 AM
Number of posts: 6,692

Journal Archives

The IRS should have went out and bought 342 lottery tickets.

Does anyone really believe the IRS line that their hard drives crashed at the same time? I don't buy it. This weak excuse furthers the distrust most people have with the Government.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/what-are-the-odds-of-7-hard-drives-crashing-in-the-same-month-like-the-irs-is-claiming

What Are The Odds of 7 Hard Drives Crashing in the Same Month Like the IRS is Claiming?

By Steve Straub On July 10, 2014

The odds of winning the Florida lottery are 1 in 22,957,480.

The odds of winning the Powerball is 1 in 175,223,510.

The odds of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 258,890,850.

The odds of a disk drive failing in any given month are roughly one in 36. The odds of two different drives failing in the same month are roughly one in 36 squared, or 1 in about 1,300. The odds of three drives failing in the same month is 36 cubed or 1 in 46,656.

The odds of seven different drives failing in the same month (like what happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails targeting conservative and pro Israeli groups) is 37 to the 7th power = 1 in 78,664,164,096. (that’s over 78 Billion) In other words, the odds are greater that you will win the Florida Lottery 342 times than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month.

It also doesn’t even mention the fact that these hard drives crashed right after people were demanding to see the emails, making the odds that much more crazy.

What do you think of the fact that you’re 342 times more likely to win the lottery than all 7 hard drives of the people under investigation crashing at the same time?

In my not so humble opinion, Discussionist has an illness. A sickness that is creeping

into discussions where heated opinions will most definitely differ. It's similar to a cancer that needs immediate treatment.

In the early days, the site was great. Lots of differing opinions without the constant cowardly alerts. I believe the easily offended at another site have migrated to Discussionist because their site has become one sided and boring. But the alert trolls made their site as it currently exists. They have ruined it. No differing opinions or thoughts are tolerated.

So, they came here. For a better debate or discussion? Maybe, but once they hear an opinion they disagree with, they alert, alert, alert. Then they stalk a particular poster until they get them a time out. They are slowly and methodically turning Discussionist into the site they ruined. They can't help themselves. It's what they do.

They're so afraid to read a differing opinion, they must alert, stalk, alert, slalk, alert. Like I said above, they are nothing but shivering little cowards.

The cancer needs an immediate treatment. The admins know who the serial alert trolls are. They need to put a stop to it if they want this site to succeed. In my opinion, anyone who alerts more than once a month is contributing to this cancer. If you're so easily butt hurt, go somewhere else, like middle school.

It's fairly easy to remedy. The admins could enforce a rule that no single little coward could alert more than once a week. Once the coward alerts, they lose alert privilege for 7 days. Those who can debate, do so. Those who can't debate alert, alert, alert.

I'm not so sure one of the admins here wants to remedy this alert troll problem. I've noticed some very one sided stalking going on.

Once all of the folks on the right have been chased off, what will you be left with? I'll tell you what, the cowardly alert trolls and stalkers you all came here to get away from.

Now, go ahead and ALERT, ALERT, ALERT. I really don't give a damn.

How are all those anti-business lib regulations working out for ya?

You blue states force businesses out, we'll take them all. Keep if up, morans.

Office Depot's HQ move could cost 1,600 Illinois jobs

www.chicagobusiness.com

OfficeMax's headquarters at 263 Shuman Blvd. in Naperville. The suburban Chicago site lost out when newly merged Office Depot opted instead to locate the head office in Florida.
Photo: CoStar Group Inc.

By Brigid Sweeney December 10, 2013
Office Depot Inc.'s decision to base itself in Boca Raton, Fla., instead of Naperville, where predecessor entity OfficeMax Inc. had its headquarters, puts some 1,600 west suburban jobs at risk.
The timing of the move remains uncertain, but Naperville city officials noted that the office supply retailer, created by the merger of OfficeMax Inc. and Office Depot Inc.last month, has two and a half years left on its lease of its 344,000-square-foot former HQ. An Office Depot spokeswoman declined to comment on how many people ultimately will be let go.

Violent crime rate in Florida dropped 23% since enacting stand your ground.

When a coward thug knows they can be met with deadly force, they tend to keep their criminal activities to areas where protecting ones self isn't allowed. No law will ever prevent me from protecting my family with large caliber, rapid fire weapons. Ever. Reinterpret the 2nd Amendment all you like, I will ignore the reinterpretation.

www.politifact.com

Crime rates in Florida have dropped since 'stand your ground,' says Dennis Baxley

Rep. Dennis Baxley on MSNBC

The law allows people to use deadly force in cases of self-defense when they believe their life is at risk.

Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall on March 21, 2012, that the law protects people who are attacked, but it does not protect aggressors. "There’s nothing in this statute to protect people who are pursuing and confronting other people," he said.

Hall asked Baxley about crime statistics that show justifiable homicides are up in Florida, but Baxley said that’s only one statistic.

"What we’ve learned is if we empower people to stop bad things from happening, they will," Baxley said. "And in fact, that statistic is coupled with another statistic. That is the fact that we’ve had a dramatic drop in violent crime since this law has been in effect."

In an interview with PBS Newshour the next day, Baxley added that he thought the law "has saved thousands of people's lives."

Here, we’re checking whether there’s been a dramatic drop in violent crime since the law went into effect. To do that, we turned to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s crime statistics and various news reports about violent crime in Florida.

We found that violent crime has dropped significantly in Florida since 2005. (The law went into effect Oct. 1, 2005.) We calculated the drop in violent crime rates, to account for population growth. In 2006 and 2007, violent crime rates were up just slightly up compared with 2005. In 2008, the violent crime rate began declining. By 2010, the violent crime rate had dropped 23 percent since 2005.

When President Bush cut taxes in 2003 it increased revenue and created millions

of jobs. Median household wealth increased and federal revenue saw a massive increase as well. Why can't 0 and the libs in congress understand this simple fact? No, raising taxes will have the same results. Increasing government will save money and reduce the deficit. One would hope he could learn from history. Guess not.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue

By The Washington Times Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squandered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich. Candidate Barack Obama used this tale to great effect, and President Obama tells it still.

The truth is that Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”



Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/#ixzz37C2kzIWO

I don't care what gun control laws are passed, I'll not relinquish my right of self protection.

The last paragraph says it all. Nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates.

www.bostonmagazine.com

Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms Continue
A study comparing international gun laws shows that getting rid of firearms might not be the solution to reducing overall violence.

By Steve Annear | Boston Daily | August 30, 2013 4:17 pm

As Boston—and the country as a whole—looks for ways to reduce gun-related deaths and violence, a study from 2007 published in a Harvard University journal is suddenly regaining increased attention for its claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes.

In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.

In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, is, in fact, false and is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”

Rich Liberals are the Biggest Global Warming Hypocrites

We've known for some time that as Democrats realize that global warming isn't happening like they were told, they become stronger in their global warming beliefs. It's a phenomenon I've often heard called the "acceptance denial" effect. Even when their global warming leader does things which would seem opposite of what one who believes in global warming would do, they will fabricate excuses for his activity so they can continue to "deny the acceptance" of the facts and continue with their preexisting political biases to make those on the left more likely to accept the big global warming moneymakers telling them to do as I say, not as I do.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion

Sea Level Rising? Gore Buys Multi-Million Dollar Oceanfront Mansion

James M. Taylor

April 30, 2010

One of the benefits of federalism is citizens can vote with their feet in choosing a state whose governance matches their world view. One of the benefits for Al Gore earning countless millions of dollars selling global warming alarm is Gore’s ability to buy property anywhere, and vote on what is and isn’t an imminent environmental crisis based on his real estate selection.

Al Gore may tell gullible followers that rising sea level threatens to swamp global coastlines, but his recent purchase of an $8 million oceanfront mansion in tony Montecito, California, tells another story altogether. Prudent property investors do not purchase multi-million dollar oceanfront mansions if they truly expect them to be underwater soon.

But Gore’s choice of oceanfront property is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. According to the Montecito Journal, Gore’s new mansion sprawls over 1.5 acres (“we all need to reduce our ecological footprint”); contains fountains, a spa, and a swimming pool (even though Southern California is water starved, and alarmists tell us global warming will cause more severe drought and water restrictions); and contains six – count them, six – fireplaces (because burning carbon-intensive wood in only five fire places at once simply won’t do when entertaining Hollywood friends).

When Enron executives touted their climate-friendly energy production while simultaneously bailing out of the company on golden parachutes, people should have taken notice. When Al Gore tells Americans we must stave off climate catastrophe by purchasing renewable power and carbon offset credits from companies he owns, and at the same time Gore purchases an oceanfront mansion with over-the-top water usage and half a dozen fireplaces, people should again take notice.

We obviously need more illegal immigrants. $113,000,000,000 a year is peanuts.

China will loan us the money to give to additional illegals. What could anyone possibly see what's wrong with this line of thinking? Other than it makes the U.S. Weaker. That's the goal for some, right??

www.fairus.org

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)

Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings
Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

I've read posts lately how the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby

would give future democratic politicians, and newly appointed Supreme Court members, freedom to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Let's assume that is the case for a moment.

If the reinterpretation is exactly the same as the SC decision on HL, then that would simply mean my employer would not be required to provide me with all the free guns I desire for my lifestyle choices and my desire to own more weapons. I could still own all the guns I like, I would just have to purchase them myself.

No big deal, really.

U.S. Now the biggest oil producing country. Thanks, Obama for

contributing to global warming. I'm sure Al Carbon Credits Gore loves it. I didn't hear much about this from the mainstream liberal media.

www.bloomberg.com

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia
By Grant Smith Jul 4, 2014 11:56 AM ET

Photographer: Ken James/Bloomberg
Oil pumps stand at the Chevron Corp. Kern River oil field in Bakersfield, California.

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »