kimmy

I'm proudly flying my Christmas brights on my balcony. Now that I know it annoys the JWs, I'll put up another string! -k

Shit, Pliny, get it together. The graph you've posted doesn't make the case you think it does. The number of people eligible for food stamps or Medicaid doesn't actually tell us whether more people are paying federal taxes or not. You know what would tell us whether more people are paying taxes or not? Statistics about whether people are paying taxes or not. Also, that little blue line along the bottom? The one charting private sector employment? That actually corresponds nicely with the "Zero or Negative Income Tax, as a percentage" line in the chart. The precipitous dip in private sector employment at the end of 2008 corresponds with the high point of "no tax" tax units reached in 2008; the rise in private sector employment shown on your graph corresponds with the decrease in "no tax" tax units. I think it's your ability to interpret data that needs a little further looking into. "Tax units" increased by 7 million from 2008 to 2011. If the number of "makers" refers to the number of people who paid federal income tax, then the number of "makers" went from 77.2 million in 2008 to 87.6 million in 2011. That's not "negligible". As for the number of people receiving benefits... what of it? Look, dude, if you're going to compare Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez, people aren't going to take you seriously. Mindless partisanship was the most polite explanation for your remark that I could think of. (Other possibilities included: -you've suffered a concussion -you've suffered a psychiatric event of some description -you're trying out material for a stand-up comedy routine -you're afflicted with some sort of genetic abnormality that impaired the formation of your brain.) The fact of the matter is, Obama has been very generous to businesses, and to the rich, and with tax rates. The stock market has done astoundingly well during the past 4 years. This idea that he's hostile to business couldn't be more wrong-- he's overly generous to business. He's done nothing to address the issues of the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable businesses paying next to nothing. The "Wall Street Reform" isn't nearly strong enough. Obama's a big softie. The real reason bankers and corporations supported Romney so heavily? The knew that he'd be even *more* generous. The rich and the corporations are the only ones whose income is growing. Why shouldn't their share of the tax burden grow accordingly? -k

Sure. What of it? I'd also still like to see his tax returns. If Mitt still feels passionately about serving his country, he could best serve by helping point out the loopholes that people like him use to avoid paying taxes. Thanks to his campaign, we at least learned of three of them-- "Son of B.O.S.S.", "C.R.U.T.", and "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwitch"... but there are probably thousands more. -k

The Social Security Amendments of 1983 (H.R. 1900, Public Law 98-21) Yup I really enjoyed watching Willard at the debate telling everybody how immoral he felt it was to be passing on a monumental debt to young people, then later the same evening assuring his target demographic that don't worry, his deficit plans would only affect people under 55. What an asswipe. -k

That is not "47% of the working population". It's 47% of "tax units." As shown on this chart under the heading Tax units with zero or negative income tax. That includes low income workers, but it also includes seniors and students and the unemployed. Interestingly, contrary to the hype coming from the right wing, that number is *decreasing*. 46.4% in 2011 was down from 49.5% in 2010 which was down from 50.8% in 2009 which was unchanged from the all-time high of 50.8% which was established in 2008 while George Walker Bush was still president. So hopefully that brings some perspective to this notion that "Obama wants to grow the number of takers and reduce the number of makers!" Mindless partisan hype. -k

Oh the humanity... to me, I think the human cost of the War on Prices is becoming too high. -k

And I'm sure that many more who did vote with the economy in mind didn't believe that Willard's "plan" would have helped anybody except Willard and his friends. -k

And every year at this time you're here to talk about "the War on Christmas". I'm sure that once again you'll be out there in the trenches to bring us the latest from the front lines of the War on Christmas. I'm actually a little worried that you may still be suffering PTSD from last year's War on Christmas. We really appreciate the risks you take to bring us front-line coverage. War changes you. "I've seen things, man." -k

I need to get that printed on a t-shirt! "Redistribution of wealth" and "pro-growth" were a couple from the last cycle. edit to add: "the job creators!" as a term for describing everybody making more than $250,000 a year. -k

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm among those who would accept very little compromise of ideology when it comes to our fundamental freedoms. But on economic issues... trying to make your choices based purely on dogma with no regard for practicality seems ridiculous to me. I think the dumbest thing going on in the US right now is the impact the Grover Norquist pledge is having on the fiscal cliff negotiations. US political spectrum? Debatable. US politics? Agreed, as some US politicians and some US media make everything seem more polarized than it really is. "reality based politics" was no doubt coined by Americans, and I'm sure they had American politics in mind when they coined it. -k

My fault; it was a misguided attempt to anglicize "Jölfuðr", "Yule Father". "Jöl" to "Yul" is fairly straightforward, but "fuðr" to "fuor" was a complete screw-up. "fodr" would have been more accurate. -k

I think that August is trying to remind us that the black-and-white rhetoric of both sides of the political spectrum doesn't really correspond to real-world issues, and that the common good is best served when politicians put pragmatism ahead of dogma. -k

Science works whether you believe in it or not. -k

If I was walking down the street and saw some guy blading an infant's scalp, I'd call the cops. Religion or not, that's just wrong. Likewise the fundamentalist kooks who let their kids die because their religion forbids any medicine except splints and prayer. -k

You're not going to start talking about dark matter again, are you? Or magnets (how do they work!?) Or that stupid theory that there's no such thing as gravity, everything is just growing at an ever-accelerating rate? Remember, Pliny, just because somebody says something on the internet doesn't mean it's true. If somebody mentions "orgones" or "das Juden Physik!" you might want to close that website and go find a book instead. -k

I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the virgin birth, or any of the other supernatural ideas that have been attached to the story. I still love Christmas. I don't believe in ghosts and spirits, but I love Halloween. One needn't believe in the original underpinnings to enjoy a good party. I bet most Britons don't really care much about Guy Fawkes, but they still love the fireworks. I feel the same way about Grinches who file lawsuits about nativity scenes that I would feel if somebody tried to ban jack o'lanterns on October 31. -k {And yes, remember the reason for the season! If you're celebrating the Yuletide without the Yulfuor, you've just got ... tide.}

I certainly believe in the right of adults to do as they wish to themselves, just as strongly as I believe in my right to laugh at them for it. (btw, check out this loser! (caution, extreme gore. You can tell he loves his Prophet the most, because he is by far the bloodiest.) However, when young children and even infants are made part of this stupidity, that strikes me as being seriously messed up. (full album) Bitchen party. What a bunch of dumb-asses. -k

Well that seems a little melodramatic... I agree that some activists are doing things that just seem petty. I really really wish that atheists would stop suing city halls to have Christmas mangers taken off city property, for example. However, I do not buy into the premise that we must be kind to religion because it's important to people. No institution, whether it be government or religion or anything else, can be exempt from criticism, mockery, or other exercise of free speech. -k

Last time something like this came up (earlier this year, I believe...) the legal opinion I read was (if I recall correctly) that this would be an acceptable form of alternative sentence provided that: -the person being sentenced were free to choose which church he would attend -equivalent alternative sentences be available to anyone without regard for what faith (or lack thereof) they follow. -k

It's now 7157 to 7156. Meanwhile in Calgary, the Conservative leads the Liberal by 1300 votes. That's not exactly a blow-out... you have to wonder how close that would have been if Justin Trudeau's video hadn't shown up last week. -k

You got your answer repeatedly, from me as well as others. Think of the "colorful insults" as a bonus. BTW, what you term "colorful insults" were really just an accurate assessment of your knowledge of this subject, and of your lack of discernment in choosing your sources of information. (this Carl Gallups character is particularly sad, even by your standards. What are you going to bring us next? Kurt "Crocoduck" Cameron and Ray "Banana-Man" Comfort?) -k

Great party. What a bunch of dumb-asses. -k

To simulate the flood carrying Noah's Ark to the top of Mount Ararat? I leave that as an experiment for betsy. -k

I don't think anything I said or the article said is untrue or misleading. Michigan Republicans did axe tax credits for actual children last year, and they are now introducing a bill to create a fetus tax credit. What's dishonest? If they were really concerned with helping families, they wouldn't have axed EITC and childcare tax credits last year, would they? "We" are a pack of Pavlov's dogs, but you guys are paragons of objectivity, right? If it's predictable that people like me and cybercoma are against this, it was equally predictable that pro-fetus shills like you and betsy and the Michigan Family Forum and the Michigan GOP themselves think it's a great idea. Coming from you, that's absolutely hilarious, Mr Fair and Balanced, because you're the last person on the entire planet who has any business criticizing anybody else for relying on partisan media. Quick impression: "Romney landslide! Romney landslide! I can hardly wait to see the shock on you liberals faces on election night LOLOLOLOL!!" The guy who had his head so far up Andrew Breitbart's decomposing sphincter that he actually thought Romney was going to win is criticizing me for relying on biased media sources? I don't think that's going to fly. It's all true, and you are wrong as usual. Or fetal monitoring. A lot of people are looking at this as an attempt to back-door "personhood" into law, and given the Michigan GOP's track record on abortion, the suspicion is warranted. -k

I already pointed out the problem with it. I'll highlight it again for you: This is a false dilemma. The author poses this question as if it were a "gotcha!" for evolution, but it isn't. He proposes that both creatures must have appeared at the exact same time or else they'd have gone extinct because they couldn't survive without each other, and implies that this is too impossible to believe. But the whole premise that both species arrived in their present dependent-on-each-other state is wrong. The mutually beneficial relationship occurs first; the mutual dependency evolves later. You asked: . And I answered: That's how a symbiotic relationship could form in a manner entirely consistent with natural selection. -k