Main Menu

The universe-shattering off-topic dump

I hate bans and moderation. It’s extra work, and I don’t want to be a judge.

There are two kinds of comments I delete: ones that violate the editorial policy (such as publishing real names of private people, obscene, threatening, and completely off topic for the site), and inane comments designed to get a reaction (trolls). Persistent practitioners of that latter group get banned. Every time I have relented on a ban, I end up re-enforcing it again.

They have something at The Fogbow called FEMA Camp 7½ that’s somewhat separate from the rest of the forum. One can get access to it if desired, and the troll/intractable person can comment there too. Still in search of a solution, I’m going to revive an old scheme, the Off-topic dump. I don’t have the ability to set up something like what Fogbow uses, but I can set up an article (this one) where no one can comment, and then move comments I don’t want to appear in the middle of the active discussions here.

To find the dumps, just select "Off topic" from the Conspiracies drop-down box in the right sidebar.

I selected a couple of comments from Hermitian to line the bottom of the pail, and I want to use them to illustrate why I put them there. The first goes

He was probably referring to the pompous fools at NASA who oversaw the Challenger investigation.

The quote was from Richard Feynman, and I deleted Hermitian’s comment because it implicitly motivated others to waste their time to look up the Feynman comment to prove Hermitian wrong, which he is. I don’t know the date of the Feynman quote, but it was in a book about him published in 1985. The Challenger Shuttle disaster was in 1986.

The second comment is like the first one, an invitation for others to waste their time in reply:

What’s a Krosis ?

Does it bloom ?

Hermitian can look up Krosis as easily as anyone else, and if he already knows the answer, then the comment can only be there to attract a response—the essence of troll.

Print Friendly

78 Responses to The universe-shattering off-topic dump

  1. avatar
    Hermitian March 1, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    Arthur: Hermtian is one of those pompous fools that drove Nobel laureate Richard Feynmanup a wall. “Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools—guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus—THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

    He was probably referring to the pompous fools at NASA who oversaw the Challenger investigation.

  2. avatar
    Hermitian March 1, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    Krosis: Krosis
    March 1, 2014 at 12:42 pm Krosis(Quote)
    #

    International Communist Party! Yeah! Long live Amadeo Bordiga!

    What’s a Krosis ?

    Does it bloom ?

  3. avatar
    helen March 1, 2014 at 8:06 pm #

    With the dna sequences being unique to an individual, and undecipheral from some of the sequence, it would be pure guess work, to develop a weapon that works on the one person in the world that contains all of the right sequences.

    “In October 2006, the X Prize Foundation established an initiative to promote the development of full genome sequencing technologies, called the Archon X Prize, intending to award $10 million to “the first Team that can build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less, with an accuracy of no more than one error in every 100,000 bases sequenced, with sequences accurately covering at least 98% of the genome, and at a recurring cost of no more than $10,000 (US) per genome.”[89]”

    No accurate enough, in my opinion.

  4. avatar
    Hermitian March 2, 2014 at 9:01 am #

    Mr. C.

    “It’s all remarkably vague.”

    What’s vague about the Major Media colluding to publish a fake LFCOLB for Obama?

  5. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 7:16 am #

    Mr. C

    I try to cultivate a sense of bemusement about how birthers continue to sustain hope in the wake of so many failures. Today is a good day to think about those failures because of two anniversaries.1 Yesterday was the 2nd anniversary of the first Arpaio / Cold Case Posse press conference, where Sheriff Joe said those memorable words about President Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service registration:

    “”Based on all the other evidence…I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic.””

    The three Amigos RC, NBC and WKV have claimed that Xerox Workcenters place a hidden comment “YCbCr” in scan to PDF files. They also have claimed that this label (or marker) is exclusive to Xerox Work centers.

    Proof that the YCbCr label is not unique to Xerox is now in hand. I am posting a link for an availble document (available on the internet) which was not created by a Xerox but which has the YCbCr label.

    See: http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Enforcement%20Actions%20DL/FinalFiled_NOP_NOC-226.pdf

    This PDF document is 49 pages. It contains many layers.

    A search of the PDF document (for the YCbCr label) returned two instances of the comment.

    The document was created using Microsoft Word (Windows) and converted to PDF using Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word.

    There is no indication that the document was ever touched by a Xerox or by MAC OS Preview.

    Not only does this PDF file contain the YCbCr label but also the Quantization and Huffman tables are identical to those of the Obama LFCOLB.

    I will be writing a short report today which I will post on Scribd.

    The METADATA from the new PDF document is provided below.

    Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word
    2014-03-03T18:00:27-05:00
    2009-12-30T13:30:33-05:00
    2014-01-13T12:45:58-05:00
    Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows)
    application/pdf

    Joe Emde

    Notice of Alleged Violation and Sanction

    uuid:8cdfbacc-880b-4c53-911e-b9fa3f5b4119
    uuid:04ce8e63-cd44-40d4-9440-267ac1fb3f08

    3

    NERC
    D:20091230183022
    PDF-XChange Viewer;2.5.211.0;Jun 17 2013;09:19:35;D:20140303180027-05’00′

    The bottom line is that the YCbCr label cannot be exclusive to Xerox Workcenters.

    Consequently, the claim of exclusivity, voiced over and over by the three Amigos, is false.

    The new reality is that there is absolutely no proof that the Obama LCOLB was created on a Xerox.

    Facts really are as hard as diamonds.

  6. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 7:23 am #

    As always, the comment editor ate most of the METADATA in my previous post.

    The Obots have never figured out how to fix this problem.

    Fortunately, Amazon knows their stuff.

    You can find the same post here:

    http://www.amazon.com/sensible-examination-Obama-LFCOLB-file/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx1R9VV7LL35QA2/1/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299&authToken=&cdSort=newest

    The METADATA from the new PDF is posted there intact.

  7. avatar
    Punchmaster via mobile March 4, 2014 at 7:29 am #

    Hermitian, once again you’re talking out of your ass. Not only did they prove the xerox theory to be true, it was done in a way that can be replicated over and over again. Your claims, on the other hand, have zilch to back them up.

  8. avatar
    John Reilly March 4, 2014 at 9:25 am #

    So, Hermie, what do you think of the fact, as hard as Diamond Head, that Hawaii says Pres. Obama was born there?

  9. avatar
    Bonsall Obot March 4, 2014 at 9:26 am #

    Let me get this straight… Birfers maintain that the layered artifacts cannot be produced by creating a PDF on a scanner/copier; science proves that said artifacts can, in fact, be produced on a specific model of scanner copier; Birfoons NOW maintain that, because OTHER models MAY ALSO produce those artifacts… what? What am I missing?

    The COLB and the LFBC exist; PDF copies of these forms have been made and distributed. Any artifacts in those COPIES are irrelevant. The originals are maintained by the duly vested authorities in Hawaii, which authorities have verified their existence and authenticity. That’s the ball game, Birfoons. Whining about electronic images of the certificates will not avail you.

  10. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 4, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    Hermitian: Facts really are as hard as diamonds.

    But not nearly has hard as your head.

  11. avatar
    Northland10 March 4, 2014 at 9:42 am #

    Hermie, you forget the entire premise was that it was not possible to reproduce the PDF with the same features by regular scanning. RC, NBC, Ken and the others showed it was possible with equipment known to be in use at the White House. Whether another method is possible does not diminish the fact that the testing destroyed the “not possible” claim.

  12. avatar
    John Reilly March 4, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    The entire premise was that the PDF was assembled by a cut-and-paste job and could not have been made by a standard copier simply making a copy. RC, Ken, and NBC proved that a copy of the certified original could be done by the Xerox machine known to be in the White House. Hermie has now proved that a copy of the certified original could be made on other equipment.

    Way to go Hermie.

    Not Universe-shattering, but Zullo-shattering.

    By the way Hermie, why do you refuse, absolutely refuse, to deal with the fact, as hard as Diamond Head, that Hawaii says the President was born there?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2014 at 10:12 am #

    So you have demonstrated (I guess) that not only can a Xerox duplicate what Zullo thought meant forgery, but other processes can too.

    Thanks for contributing to the proof of the incompetence of Zullo and the Cold Case Posse.

    Hermitian: Facts really are as hard as diamonds.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    It didn’t eat “most” of the metadata in your previous post; it ate all of it because this is a TEXT editor, not a RICH TEXT editor. It’s not a defect.

    Hermitian: As always, the comment editor ate most of the METADATA in my previous post.

  15. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 10:18 am #

    The PDF file

    See: http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Enforcement%20Actions%20DL/FinalFiled_NOP_NOC-226.pdf

    has monochrome layers which were compressed with JBIG2. Other monochrome layers were compressed with Flate.

    The file was not touched by a Xerox Workcenter or MAC OS Preview.

    Facts are as hard as diamonds…

  16. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 10:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2014 at 10:14 am (Quote) #

    “It didn’t eat “most” of the metadata in your previous post; it ate all of it because this is a TEXT editor, not a RICH TEXT editor. It’s not a defect.”

    “”Hermitian: As always, the comment editor ate most of the METADATA in my previous post.””

    So why don’t you ask Amazon how they do it ?

    NBC’s blog has the same problem…

  17. avatar
    Lupin March 4, 2014 at 10:30 am #

    Hermitian: The new reality is that there is absolutely no proof that the Obama LCOLB was created on a Xerox.

    You really are an idiot, aren’t you?

  18. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 10:35 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Dr. Conspiracy
    March 4, 2014 at 10:12 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)
    #

    Mr. C

    “So you have demonstrated (I guess) that not only can a Xerox duplicate what Zullo thought meant forgery, but other processes can too.
    Thanks for contributing to the proof of the incompetence of Zullo and the Cold Case Posse.”

    “”Hermitian: Facts really are as hard as diamonds.

    No I have demonstrated that the forger could have assembled the LFCOLB in Microsoft Word (by digital cut and paste of bits and pieces taken from other documents) and then saved it as a PDF file by means of

    CreatorTool||Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word

    and

    Producer||Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows)||Producer.

    It’s not rocket science.

    The rest is just cover up.

  19. avatar
    Hermitian March 4, 2014 at 10:46 am #

    John Reilly March 4, 2014 at 10:09 am (Quote) #

    “The entire premise was that the PDF was assembled by a cut-and-paste job and could not have been made by a standard copier simply making a copy. RC, Ken, and NBC proved that a copy of the certified original could be done by the Xerox machine known to be in the White House. Hermie has now proved that a copy of the certified original could be made on other equipment.

    “Way to go Hermie.

    The new premise…

    I have demonstrated that the forger could have assembled the LFCOLB in Microsoft Word (by digital cut and paste of bits and pieces taken from other documents) and then saved it as a PDF file by means of

    CreatorTool||Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word

    and

    Producer||Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows).

    It’s not rocket science.

    The rest is just cover up.

    Facts are still hard as diamonds.

  20. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 8, 2014 at 11:37 am #

    Like maybe ignoring and discrediting the real forger? Would that qualify as obstruction of justice? I get the impression that those two investigators introduced a month ago might actually investigating Zullo and Arpaio.

    About a month ago I was able to post on the BirtherReport website, for the first time, without my posts being censored and/or deleted altogether. And, now the MCCCP wants to transfer to a new webhost?

    Hmm…….

    http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com

  21. avatar
    bgansel9 March 8, 2014 at 2:37 pm #

    Nancy Ruth Owens: Like maybe ignoring and discrediting the real forger?

    This thread is not about your crazy conspiracy theory Nancy. This thread is about the political witch hunts that Sheriff Arpaio and his friend, County Attorney (now disbarred) Andrew Thomas participated in, which is costing our county many millions of dollars in reparations. This has NOTHING to do with your Birther fantasies.

  22. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 8, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    bgansel9: This thread is not about your crazy conspiracy theory Nancy. This thread is about the political witch hunts that Sheriff Arpaio and his friend, County Attorney (now disbarred) Andrew Thomas participated in, which is costing our county many millions of dollars in reparations. This has NOTHING to do with your Birther fantasies.

    I never said I had any faith in Arapio.

    bgansel9: So is this how you do deductive reasoning to come to the conclusions that you do? Pretty shoddy work for a “journalist.”

    I never said I had any faith in BR or “Falcon.” My guess was that “Falcon” is “Zullo.” I have no proof, of course. When I get a subpoena at my door is when it will matter. Until then, it’s just rhetoric. Can you tell me why should I care?

    http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com

  23. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    Classified, to protect the guilty. God forbid if Daddy Sessions and many political others were to be forced to disclose the truth about their “precious” children and their own dirty deeds. And, don’t tell me this isn’t connected to the birther issue. It most certainly is.

    The slaughters continue unabated because as the cartels already know, American men are nothing but a bunch of greedy, perverted cowards.

    I killed Tiffany Sessions with a broken concrete block to the head behind Hickory Hills, Gainesville, Florida while her confused partner-in-crime watched. She was scalped. I don’t know what they did with her body.

    Pablo Escobar, The True American King.

  24. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm #

    bgansel9: Nancy Ruth Owens: Falcon?

    So is this how you do deductive reasoning to come to the conclusions that you do? Pretty shoddy work for a “journalist.”

    Shoddy? Nancy Ruth Owens is a killer journalist!

  25. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 8, 2014 at 5:55 pm #

    Benji Franklin: Shoddy?Nancy Ruth Owens is a killer journalist!

    Nancy Ruth Owens is the #1 Serial Killer who has earned a degree in Journalism.

  26. avatar
    bgansel9 March 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

    Benji Franklin: Shoddy? Nancy Ruth Owens is a killer journalist!

    Yeah, with emphasis on the word “Killer.” LMAO!

  27. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 9, 2014 at 3:33 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    Nancy indirectly confirms that nobody REALLY takes the possibility that BHO’s documents were forged.I mean, Nancy has claimed that she was the actual forger, and no one follows up on the possibility?Really?

    Yep, Really. Do you see how fast they closed out the Tiffany Sessions case after twenty-five years of “Oh, poor, poor Daddy Sessions?” Sympathy for a greiving father/family member goes a long way and Daddy Sessions didn’t give that Pity Card up with much relish, I can assure you.

    Read between the lines here.

    Anyone who watches my posts in this forum knows that I claimed Tiffany Sessions murder about a month or so ago and that it was an act of self-defense. Who set her on me? Well, much like the history of King Obama, we’ll never know, now will we?

    http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com

  28. avatar
    Nancy Ruth Owens March 9, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

    Reality Check: I have been involved in politics since I was 10 years old. I helped my dad campaign for Richard Nixon in 1960, and Barry Goldwater in 1964. My political views have been and remain conservative. I am a Christian. I’ve been an NRA member for decades. I’ve possessed a government issued carry permit continuously for three decades. I’m retired. I love Ford Mustangs. I didn’t vote for Barack Obama for President in 2008 or 2012.

    Why am I not surprised that RC views this guys as some sort of expert! *wiping away tears of laughter* So desperate is RC to avoid that prison cell.

    Did I miss the part where he’s some sort of expert? Did he deliberately leave it out to play silly “gotcha” games or does he simply just not have any? (Print screen, copy, paste to paint, save for records).

    The documents are forged and I forged them in 1985.

    http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com

  29. avatar
    Nancy R Owens March 10, 2014 at 8:36 pm #

    King. Usurper implies he took over via force which he didn’t. The government drug dealers needed to cover their own tushes ASAP. Mexican Drug War. What Mexican Drug War?

    RanTalbott: Translation: He insisted on looking for facts and hard evidence, instead of gossip and speculation that made you feel better about calling Obama a “usurper”.

  30. avatar
    NR Owens March 10, 2014 at 8:45 pm #

    You wish. I’ve had my hand raised since the late 70′s when I shot Che Che in the groin (fatal) in Clewiston, Florida, Hendry County.

    Benji Franklin: Karl Gall Oops!:”Once again, Listeners, I’ve got the CCP chief instigator, Grand Rear Entry Seaman Mike Zoo Low on the phone and this will drive the Obots CRAZY, but if I understand him right, he’s just TRIUMPHANTLY concluded a 6 day ordeal SUCCESSFULLY investigating his way out of a paper bag, is that right, Mike?”

    Voice on the phone:”No this is Officer Beefheart – I’m a real officer of the law. We busted into the paper bag and rescued your clown Zoo Low from himself – he’s been creating a public nuisance here in a restaurant for almost a week. He’s still babbling on about how everything he told people about Obama and Obama’s team was actually a lie. He’s saying that you encouraged him!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Let me just insert here for our listeners, that this news, if true, is of no concern. And I promise you, that everybody who declared that Obama is ineligible just because they hate him, or are racists – they have been COMPLETELY VINDICATED.”

    Voice on the phone:”Also, if you’re still there, Gally boy, Sheriff Our Pie Hole, and everybody connected with this so-called investigation have confessed to conspiring to defraud the American people with all of this anti-Obama nonsense!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Not a problem!No concern at all. Sheriff who?”

    Field Marshall Fuhrer Mike Zoo Low (yelling in the background) :”Karl! Karl!Burn your books! They’re coming after your non-profit designation!Burn your books! And the cars!And the houses!Oh the inhumanity!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”THAT’S a problem!We’ve got to disappear this Brain Really character.If you can still hear me, Mike, Do you remember Nancy Owem’s cell number?”

    Police Officer:”I’m hanging this up in about 15 seconds, Gal!”

    MikeZoo Low (murmuring frantically now through the face obscuring extraneous fabric on his ill-fitting straight jacket):”Nancy Owem’s cell number was Building 3, Block 2, Cell 38, Karl! Karl?”

  31. avatar
    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ March 11, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

    The Magic M: How about this particular piece of nonsense:

    would have left his son unable to qualify for 14th Amendment citizenship because that requires birth to a father who is fully subject to the entirety of American sovereign authority over American citizens

    Nowhere in the 14th does it say you need a citizen father to be a US citizen.

    You thinking skills leave much to be desired, or maybe your built-in bias is bending your reasoning and comprehension skill out of straight-forward alignment.
    Foreign (Visa Card) guests of the U.S. government are NOT subject to its sovereign authority over its own citizens…AND its immigrants (Green Card permanent residents.) All of them who are male are *fully* subject if within a certain age range. The subjection required by the 14th Amendment was and is full, complete subjection. Former slaves were fully subject because they were under no foreign subjection whatsoever.

    But foreign guests are not subject, cannot be drafted, cannot be ordered to observe U.S. sanctions, pay income taxes, sign-up for Obamacare, nor to not visit banned nations. They ARE NOT SUBJECT.

    [This is nonsense. Anyone who has a green card is subject to the draft, and the only reason other foreigners are not drafted is just because that is how the law reads, not because we lack jurisdiction. During the Civil War we drafted foreigners. Further even non-resident aliens (those without green cards) are subject to income tax. See: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens . Doc]

    They are subject to their own government, -in the nation where they live.

    a.r.nash ruminates:

    ~a new thought…

    One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.

    That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s citizenship.

    Also, who they are determines what one is *not*.

    From that standpoint, one can make an analogy of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.

    1. One is either *born live*, possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents, -or a widowed American mother; or…

    2. one is *born adopted*, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…

    3. one is *born dead*, -with the political DNA of a NON-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government allowed in the country on a temporary Visa instead of a Green Card which makes one a fellow member of American society, -albeit without citizen privileges.

    So… in regard to presidential eligibility:

    Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.

    Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.

    Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen due to birth to a non-immigrant father.

    That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.

    (1) He was born British. -uncontested.

    (2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.

    (3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.

    (4) Only those born subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.

    (5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.

    (6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.

    (7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    (8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.

    What could be clearer? It’s natural unassailable fact, and natural and national law.

    Who disagrees, and with what exactly? No non-specific weasel-word complaints are worthy of response.

  32. avatar
    The Truth March 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    nbc: Ah, but is that true… I am afraid to ask you for supporting data… And before you just quote another website, do the proper research first.

    Unemployment is down, stock market is up, gays are finally accepted to serve our country, health insurance reform was successfully passed. And that with a mostly unwilling congress who was intent to not give him a single success… Deficit is down, spending is down, consumer confidence is up.

    and

    Your perception of the reality in regards to this president is skewed at best, lets reveal some facts about his economic policies, since many blame Bush or claim the president is doing a great job here are the last four years of Bush vs the first four years of Obama;

    Yearly budget deficit;
    Bush $696,281,000 ,000
    Obama $2,360,809,000,000
    239% increase

    http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

    Cost to taxpayer from the SNAP program
    Bush $134,791.890,000
    Obama $276,002,620,000
    104.76% increase

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

    Bankruptcy of US businesses
    Bush 165,081
    Obama 205,000
    24% increase

    http://news.abi.org/sites/default/files/statistics/QuarterlyUSBusinessFilingsbyYear1994-2012_0.pdf

    Number of people actually employed per year collectively
    Bush 8601490
    Obama 6735775
    -21.69% a decrease

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

    But here is my favorite, the total national debt
    Up to and including 2008 $10.025 trillion
    Obama over 17 trillion. Do I need a link for this also or is this understood?
    Yes, in five scant years his leadership has raised our entire national debt since our nation started borrowing money by 70%. Great leadership.

    If we have all these new hires and unemployment is really down, explain how that is possible? It is almost laughable except it is a tragedy.

    So, how does someone create a socialist society, government run and dependent nation? Spend more than you have, borrow, go insolvent, thus when the economy crashes people have no choice but create bigger government because of dependency. This is how to fundamentally transform America?

  33. avatar
    The Truth March 15, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    nbc: Ah, but is that true… I am afraid to ask you for supporting data… And before you just quote another website, do the proper research first.

    Unemployment is down, stock market is up, gays are finally accepted to serve our country, health insurance reform was successfully passed. And that with a mostly unwilling congress who was intent to not give him a single success… Deficit is down, spending is down, consumer confidence is up.

    and

    He approves of gay rights? Here is another example of what does Obama really stand for, it is a video clip from CNN who is friendly to him, at least now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzaOkO0HnGY

  34. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm #

    The Truth, your own links do not even support your own conclusions.

    Let’s take the Adelphi…

    He adjusts for inflation, but here it is…

    Average Change in Deficit
    George W Bush: $117,760,599,537
    Barack Obama: -$179,644,858,785 (which means that Obama actually reduced the deficit from when he took office by an average of $179 billion a year).

    Hear that. Obama has actually reduced the deficit from when he took office, rather than expanded it. By the way, that stat I took is actually displayed above the stat that you selectively added. So, you must have read it, but chose to ignore it on the basis of it not proving your point.

    Your selective stats mean absolutely nothing. I can take stats from that same exact page, and it shows a much fuller picture. I haven’t checked your other links, but I’m presuming that you are just as selective in your stats that you choose.

  35. avatar
    The Truth March 15, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    The Truth, your own links do not even support your own conclusions.

    Let’s take the Adelphi…

    He adjusts for inflation, but here it is…

    Average Change in Deficit
    George W Bush: $117,760,599,537
    Barack Obama: -$179,644,858,785 (which means that Obama actually reduced the deficit from when he took office by an average of $179 billion a year).

    Hear that.Obama has actually reduced the deficit from when he took office, rather than expanded it.By the way, that stat I took is actually displayed above the stat that you selectively added.So, you must have read it, but chose to ignore it on the basis of it not proving your point.

    Your selective stats mean absolutely nothing.I can take stats from that same exact page, and it shows a much fuller picture.I haven’t checked your other links, but I’m presuming that you are just as selective in your stats that you choose.

    Good, let me know what you come up with on the federal debt also.

  36. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 28, 2014 at 11:38 pm #

    I have statistics that back up this statement, but they also imply that President Obama has been the second most fiscally responsible president in recent history. If you look at the change in the deficit under budgets written during a president’s administration (arguably the way in which the president exerts the most control over the budget), Republicans have increased the deficit by over $1.7 trillion since Carter took office and Democrats will have lowered the deficit by nearly $1.3 trillion* if projections for the rest of the Obama administration are accurate. He’s no Clinton, but it looks like President Obama will have erased most of the Bush deficit by the time he leaves office. You may not like his other policies, but you have to give him his props on the deficit.

    * Based on Treasury Department numbers for total money collected and spent by the Federal Government.

    The Truth: I have also stated on this site I am an independent and that I had voted for Bill Clinton, he was the most fiscally responsible president in recent history.

  37. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 29, 2014 at 2:34 am #

    Let’s take a look at recent presidents…

    FY 2013 (Obama): 680 Billion Deficit – 52.1% decrease
    FY 2009 (Bush): 1412.7 Billion Deficit – 1100.0% increase
    FY 2001 (Clinton) : 128.2 Billion Surplus – 150% decrease
    FY 1993 (Bush Sr.) : 255.1 Billion Deficit – 67.1% increase
    FY 1989 (Reagan) : 152.6 Billion Deficit – 93% increase
    FY 1981 (Carter): 79.0 Billion Deficit – 47% increase
    FY 1977 (Ford): 53.7 Billion Deficit

    So, if you’re ranking them by how much they increase or decrease the deficit. You have the following…

    Clinton (150% decrease)
    Obama (52% decrease)
    Carter (47% increase)
    Bush Sr. (67% increase)
    Reagan (93% increase)
    Bush Jr. (1100% increase)

    Barack Obama has reduced the budget deficit by 52% from the time that he took office (remember, the budget for FY 2009 was passed in 2008, implemented in 2008, and was under the control of President Bush when it was implemented.

  38. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 29, 2014 at 4:16 am #

    So actually, I was wrong—President Obama is already ahead of President Clinton in deficit reduction by a score of $732.7 billion to $383.3 billion. And assuming that President Obama knocks another $300 billion give or take off of the deficit then you’ll end up with the $1.7 trillion increase under Republicans and the $1.3 trillion decrease under Democrats that I said.

    The question is will The Truth accept that President Obama has done a better job on the budget than any of his recent predecessors?

    dunstvangeet:
    Let’s take a look at recent presidents…

    FY 2013 (Obama): 680 Billion Deficit – 52.1% decrease
    FY 2009 (Bush): 1412.7 Billion Deficit – 1100.0% increase
    FY 2001 (Clinton) : 128.2 Billion Surplus – 150% decrease
    FY 1993 (Bush Sr.) : 255.1 Billion Deficit – 67.1% increase
    FY 1989 (Reagan) : 152.6 Billion Deficit – 93% increase
    FY 1981 (Carter): 79.0 Billion Deficit – 47% increase
    FY 1977 (Ford): 53.7 Billion Deficit

    So, if you’re ranking them by how much they increase or decrease the deficit.You have the following…

    Clinton (150% decrease)
    Obama (52% decrease)
    Carter (47% increase)
    Bush Sr. (67% increase)
    Reagan (93% increase)
    Bush Jr. (1100% increase)

    Barack Obama has reduced the budget deficit by 52% from the time that he took office (remember, the budget for FY 2009 was passed in 2008, implemented in 2008, and was under the control of President Bush when it was implemented.

  39. avatar
    Seamus March 29, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    Slartibartfast; most ignorant statement about the deficit , obama only decreased it by 52 % ? Compared to his own previous deficit of stimulus spending . When Obama took office our national debt was 9 trillion, today it is over 17 trillion. Azide from birther talk, saying Obama spends less then Obama is a foolish argument. Obama has incurred as much debt as all other Presidents combined . Funny how the extreme left plays with numbers to distort the truth .

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    All appropriations and revenues are under the control of Congress. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “Obama increased the deficit.”

    Seamus: Slartibartfast; most ignorant statement about the deficit , obama only decreased it by 52 % ?

  41. avatar
    The Truth March 29, 2014 at 12:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    All appropriations and revenues are under the control of Congress. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “Obama increased the deficit.”

    The president has veto power to stop the excess debt accumulation, why does he not use it? He said himself “The buck stops here” ( which is a line taken from another president), it is his spending policy that has been the issue. During his campaign he blamed Bush for raising the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion, we now stand at nearly 18 trillion under Obama?

    This post was about violent statements by some insane people who want civil war. I suppose the debt is relevant to the issue, the reason the debt is out of control is war. I do blame Bush for wars that were started because of WMD that did not exist, I believe it was mainly due to Cheney’s lust for blood. Reagan built a debt with military spending which in turn caused the Soviet Union to fall, which in my opinion was worth it, a cold war nuclear catastrophe was avoided. I gave Clinton credit for his financial responsibility, he was a leader that showed responsibility to our financial future, there is no way I would ever say that about Obama. The worst part is, we will not know for another decade just how much damage the Affordable Health Care act will do to create a larger debt due to Obama. The health care system was broken but this law was not properly thought out and administered in a professional manner, for that I blame the Democrats. The republicans are also guilty because they offered no solution to the problems, they just ignored them. The two party system divide is broken at best, so threaders, please try to avoid all lefty righty superiority comments, we need a leader that will fix the problems. Like Obama said “The buck stops here”, that is a correct statement.

  42. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    The Truth: The president has veto power to stop the excess debt accumulation, why does he not use it?

    If he had a line item veto that might be an effective strategy but vetoing an omnibus spending bill would only make the craziness in Washington worse.

  43. avatar
    Rickey March 29, 2014 at 4:04 pm #

    The Truth: The president has veto power to stop the excess debt accumulation, why does he not use it? He said himself “The buck stops here” ( which is a line taken from another president), it is his spending policy that has been the issue. During his campaign he blamed Bush for raising the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion, we now stand at nearly 18 trillion under Obama?

    Not surprisingly, your numbers are wrong.

    At the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year (the last fiscal year for which Clinton was responsible), the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. At the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal years (the last fiscal year from which Bush was responsible). the debt stood at $11.9 trillion, an increase of about 105%. So the debt increased from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion under Bush, not “$5 trillion to $9 trillion” as you claim.

    Under Obama the debt has increased from $11.9 trillion to about $17.5 trillion now, an increase of 47%, compared to a $105% increase under Bush.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Remember, it was Bush who went to war without raising the funds to pay for it. It was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and immediately turned it into a deficit. It was Obama who inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen since the Great Depression. Obama also had to govern with an opposition party which was determined to oppose everything which he proposed.

    And I’m still waiting for you to address the lies you spread about Obama’s mother.

  44. avatar
    nbc March 29, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

    The Truth: The president has veto power to stop the excess debt accumulation, why does he not use it?

    That’s of course an overly simplistic way to look at debt accumulation. It sounds as if you are not very familiar with the impact of such an approach on both the credit worthiness of the United States, as well as our ability to pay those to whom we owe moneys.

    The existence of our debt is far less relevant than the impact of rushed approaches on our future. But if you want to insist that our President should destroy our Nation, then why are you so upset that he doesn’t?

  45. avatar
    The Truth March 29, 2014 at 4:48 pm #

    Rickey: Not surprisingly, your numbers are wrong.

    At the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year (the last fiscal year for which Clinton was responsible), the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. At the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal years (the last fiscal year from which Bush was responsible). the debt stood at $11.9 trillion, an increase of about 105%. So the debt increased from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion under Bush, not “$5 trillion to $9 trillion” as you claim.

    Under Obama the debt has increased from $11.9 trillion to about $17.5 trillion now,an increase of 47%, compared to a $105% increase under Bush.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Remember, it was Bush who went to war without raising the funds to pay for it. It was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and immediately turned it into a deficit. It was Obama who inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen since the Great Depression. Obama also had to govern with an opposition party which was determined to oppose everything which he proposed.

    And I’m still waiting for you to address the lies you spread about Obama’s mother.

    Not surprisingly perhaps you cannot read? I said “During his campaign he blamed Bush for raising the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4

    I never said what the debt was, I repeated what Obama said, so if it is not accurate it comes from a man that himself is not accurate. He called Bush a traitor, what does that make him now? Even by your numbers he has increased the debt nearly the same dollar amount as Bush in six years and has two years left!!! He will set the record, no doubt about it.

  46. avatar
    The Truth March 29, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    nbc: That’s of course an overly simplistic way to look at debt accumulation. It sounds as if you are not very familiar with the impact of such an approach on both the credit worthiness of the United States, as well as our ability to pay those to whom we owe moneys.

    The existence of our debt is far less relevant than the impact of rushed approaches on our future. But if you want to insist that our President should destroy our Nation, then why are you so upset that he doesn’t?

    Your kidding right? The US treasury takes in roughly 3 trillion a year, we owe nearly 18 trillion. We are insolvent, go ask a banker if they would make that loan for you with the same ratio numbers. It is laughable. If the US government did not spend one dime it would take six years to pay that money back. It is an unserviceable amount, the credit worthiness of the US was dropped, deservedly so. If we do not stop deficit spending soon we will not be able to pay the interest on that amount, as a matter of fact, if the interest rate wasn’t so low right now we would be toast already.

  47. avatar
    The Truth March 29, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

    Rickey: Not surprisingly, your numbers are wrong.

    At the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year (the last fiscal year for which Clinton was responsible), the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. At the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal years (the last fiscal year from which Bush was responsible). the debt stood at $11.9 trillion, an increase of about 105%. So the debt increased from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion under Bush, not “$5 trillion to $9 trillion” as you claim.

    Under Obama the debt has increased from $11.9 trillion to about $17.5 trillion now,an increase of 47%, compared to a $105% increase under Bush.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Remember, it was Bush who went to war without raising the funds to pay for it. It was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and immediately turned it into a deficit. It was Obama who inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen since the Great Depression. Obama also had to govern with an opposition party which was determined to oppose everything which he proposed.

    And I’m still waiting for you to address the lies you spread about Obama’s mother.

    My last link was broken;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U

    And I stand corrected, he did not say Bush was a traitor, he said he was “unpatriotic”, my apologies to Mr Obama for the misquote.

  48. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 11:04 am #

    Keith: On the other hand, the problem with Godwin’s Law is that is assumes that invoking Hitler or Nazis is automatically comparing the events being argued about to the Shoah, and the perpetrators to inhuman monsters.

    As the recent film Hanna Arndt reminds us, the people who allowed this to happen were not inhuman monsters. They were inhuman ordinary people like Adolf Eichmann who could apparently could separate his actions from their consequence. He was just following his orders and it was the next person down the line, or the next after that, or the next after that that was responsible for the killing, not him.

    The off-topic discussion I had in the bullying thread with about the Libertarian party and its plan to destroy the American education system is a case in point. My correspondent ‘was a Libertarian’ therefore he wanted to give parents and students more choice about their education. That is a high sounding cause. But the Libertarian party policy calls for the complete elimination of the public school system – removal of State Constitutional guarantees for education and required attendance, and the complete ending of taxpayer supported education.

    That this would result in the complete lack of choice about people’s education doesn’t bother my correspondent, that is not his worry, he is just focused one thing: convincing people that they don’t have any choice. When it is pointed out that they do indeed have choice, the answer is that it must have been ‘before the Department of Education’. The Department of Education was founded in 1867, and millions of children and their parents had absolutely ZERO choice about education what-so-ever.

    This is where Godwin breaks down, when the point is that evil is not perpetrated by monsters, but by ordinary people who have lost their humanity, Nazism are good example.

    Well Keith you want to blame Libertarian for the failures of the current school system. Libertarian don’t run the California school system or the New York school system. It may influence the Arizona school system so you may have an argument as to your state. My state just recently let kids choose to go to schools they wanted instead of by their mailing address. Apparently you agree that it is a step in the right direction. Is there some failures in the Libertarian philosophy? I would concede that there are, but you want to completely demonize it for failures caused by Republicans and Democrats.

  49. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 11:46 am #

    But its not about choice of where your child goes JRC. As mentioned several times, thats not an issue. It’s actually the Libertarians demanding to “control” where their money goes and Cutting funding to schools with low grade averages and rewarding schools with high grade averages, creating a class of massively funded Schools and massively underfunded schools rather than equal funding across the board, which is apparently socialism.

    And stop bringing up California. California hasnt had control of its finances since Republicans and Libertarians tricked everyone into passing the law that they needed a supermajority to raise takes. If anything. California shows the folly of the “If Surplus CUT TAXES. If Deficit CUT TAXES” view of economics. They are finally running a surplus now after FINALLY getting enough power to actually raise a tax. (Simplistic view I know but come on…)

  50. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    Suranis:
    But its not about choice of where your child goes JRC. As mentioned several times, thats not an issue. It’s actually the Libertarians demanding to “control” where their money goes and Cutting funding to schools with low grade averages and rewarding schoolswith high grade averages, creating a class of massively funded Schools and massively underfunded schools rather than equal funding across the board, which is apparently socialism.

    And stop bringing up California. California hasnt had control of its finances since Republicans and Libertarians tricked everyone into passing the law that they needed a supermajority to raise takes. If anything. California shows the folly of the “If Surplus CUT TAXES. If Deficit CUT TAXES” view of economics. They are finally running a surplus now after FINALLY getting enough power to actually raise a tax. (Simplistic view I know but come on…)

    Suranis, the whole U.S. school system is failing. It’s not the Libertarians fault. You may disagree with the fixes that Libertarian would try, but it’s not the Libertarians fault. We don’t control any state government not the House or Senate. So to put the blame on Libertarians is a cop out by those that actual do run it. That is my point. Disagree with us, that is fine. But don’t blame us for what was ruined by Republican and Democrats.

  51. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 12:44 pm #

    https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

    Suranis, check out this chart. Notice the adjusted for inflation part of it. Compare per pupil expenditure in 1985 to 2009. Do you see a problem there? Where is the return on the investment?

  52. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

    I don’t care what the total average is, JRC. If the AVERAGE is going up, how come schools are winding up underfunded? If the AVERAGE income in the US is up, how come half the US population earns so little money they are below the threshold for paying federal taxes? And how come half the US’s Income is earned by less than 10% of the population?

    Averages disguise systemic problems. If, theoretically, most of the money is getting sucked into just 5% of schools, the entire education system will fail. That’s the danger of putting out raw average numbers from across the entire US.

    As I and others have said, talking in terms of allowing people to choose where their children go to school is NOT the issue and never was.

  53. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 1:18 pm #

    Basically to sort out the US education system, you would have to examine how money relates to Academic excellence, how results are fare across the states and which parties are in control of the state, and what policies are being implemented in which state and county, and then you would have to implement what works and ditch what doesn’t. Unfortunately the side who are causing the problems will fight that tooth and nail as it will make them and their ideology look bad.

  54. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 1:27 pm #

    Suranis:
    I don’t care what the total average is, JRC. If the AVERAGE is going up, how come schools are winding up underfunded? If the AVERAGE income in the US is up, how come half the US population earns so little money they are below the threshold for paying federal taxes? And how come half the US’s Income is earned by less than 10% of the population?

    Averages disguise systemic problems. If, theoretically, most of the money is getting sucked into just 5% of schools, the entire education system will fail. That’s the danger of putting out raw average numbers from across the entire US.

    As I and others have said, talking in terms of allowing people to choose where their children go to school is NOT the issue and never was.

    Underfunded because they are spending more per student. Okay, I guess you don’t understand adjusted for inflation. Even after adjusting for inflation we are spending over 60 percent more per student. Almost 3 times as much without inflation. Adjusted for inflation people are probably making less money compared to 1985, but we are spending more money for education, yet we are falling behind which is the point.

    You argument fails. These are public schools not private. Romney and those aren’t sending their kids to one of those schools. So no the money isn’t going to the top 5 percent. We are spending more money, and still failing. But blame the Libertarians.

  55. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm #

    Suranis:
    Basically to sort out the US education system, you would have to examine how money relates to Academic excellence, how results are fare across the states and which parties are in control of the state, and what policies are being implemented in which state and county, and then you would have to implement what works and ditch what doesn’t. Unfortunately the side who are causing the problems will fight that tooth and nail as it will make them and their ideology look bad.

    I would like to see that. Yeah, Democrats and Republicans would fight that tooth and nail.

  56. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2014 at 2:11 pm #

    You clearly don’t understand the point Suranis was making. Average is a bad statistic in this case. You can get a high average by spending enough on a single person’s education while ignoring everyone else. In this case, the mean would be a far better measure and, I suspect, far lower.

    JRC: Underfunded because they are spending more per student. Okay, I guess you don’t understand adjusted for inflation.

  57. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    You clearly don’t understand the point Suranis was making.Average is a bad statistic in this case.You can get a high average by spending enough on a single person’s education while ignoring everyone else.In this case, the mean would be a far better measure and, I suspect, far lower.

    Okay, I understand that his point fails. We are talking public schools not private. And as long as these “super rich public” school allow poor kids that don’t live in their “super rich neighborhood” to attend then maybe resources would be distributed equally. But his argument failed on many levels. I’ll address the first. Please show the supposed 5 percent of the public schools that are getting the majority of the money. (No supporting evidence except his “theoretical”). I guess we can just ignore average temperature because hey the days aren’t really getting much warmer.

  58. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 2:43 pm #

    What kind of math are you guys doing with this average….please explain. I’d like to see how you break it down.

  59. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    You clearly don’t understand the point Suranis was making.Average is a bad statistic in this case.You can get a high average by spending enough on a single person’s education while ignoring everyone else.In this case, the mean would be a far better measure and, I suspect, far lower.

    Another thing….we are spending more per student…..60 percent adjusted as I stated, and almost 3 times with it. So why is it costing more for less results? These are hard numbers. And if you can show me a majority of schools that are getting less funding than their 1985 numbers or even spending less than the adjusted for inflation numbers then please do.

  60. avatar
    Sef April 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

    JRC: Another thing….we are spending more per student…..60 percent adjusted as I stated, and almost 3 times with it.So why is it costing more for less results?These are hard numbers.And if you can show me a majority of schools that are getting less funding than their 1985 numbers or even spending less than the adjusted for inflation numbers then please do.

    I would expect that the “inflation adjustment” over that time period is not really representative. The expenses paid in 1985 for high tech equipment (h/w and s/w) probably doesn’t compare to the 2009 expenses. Additionally, capital expenditures in 1985 lasted a lot longer than capital expenditures in 2009. Nowhere in this discussion is a mention of what I consider an absolute abomination in some schools: an expectation that some teachers pay for supplies for their students out of their own pocket with no reimbursement. Salaries for school administrators have skyrocketed and left teachers’ salaries far behind. I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the students are really getting the short end of the stick while some are really making out.

  61. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 3:23 pm #

    Sef: I would expect that the “inflation adjustment” over that time period is not really representative. The expenses paid in 1985 for high tech equipment (h/w and s/w) probably doesn’t compare to the 2009 expenses. Additionally, capital expenditures in 1985 lasted a lot longer than capital expenditures in 2009. Nowhere in this discussion is a mention of what I consider an absolute abomination in some schools: an expectation that some teachers pay for supplies for their students out of their own pocket with no reimbursement. Salaries for school administrators have skyrocketed and left teachers’ salaries far behind. I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the students are really getting the short end of the stick while some are really making out.

    In the 80′s students didn’t pay for books around here, now they do. I guess that isn’t figured into it. Computers were way more expensive then they are now, don’t you agree? I mean 20 Apples back then is probably more an expense than what they pay for a complete computer lab now.

    But either way, we are paying more….whether it’s Admin or whatever and we aren’t getting results. You agree right?

  62. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Even with the Chrome Books they are getting next year….the school isn’t paying. It’s the parents. The school might be paying for the cable and wireless routers, but the parents pay for the device, and I imagine the parents will pay for the e-books as well.

  63. avatar
    Sef April 13, 2014 at 3:32 pm #

    JRC: Computers were way more expensive then they are now, don’t you agree? I mean 20 Apples back then is probably more an expense than what they pay for a complete computer lab now.

    Except that a lot of those Apples were given to the schools.

  64. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm #

    Consider the following two samples:

    {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,100}

    {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10}

    Both have an average of 10, but the first has a median of 1 and the second has a median of 10.

    According to the Census Bureau (by way of Wikipedia) in 2004 the US median income was $60,528 while the mean income was $17,210 less.

    If the median amount per student (or, better yet, the minimum amount per student) were behaving in the same manner as you have shown the average to exhibit, then it would strongly support the argument you are making, but I suspect that the actual data would show the median hasn’t increased nearly as markedly.

    JRC:
    What kind of math are you guys doing with this average….please explain. I’d like to see how you break it down.

  65. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 3:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Consider the following two samples:

    {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,100}

    {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10}

    Both have an average of 10, but the first has a median of 1 and the second has a median of 10.

    According to the Census Bureau (by way of Wikipedia) in 2004 the US median income was $60,528 while the mean income was $17,210 less.

    If the median amount per student (or, better yet, the minimum amount per student) were behaving in the same manner as you have shown the average to exhibit, then it would strongly support the argument you are making, but I suspect that the actual data would show the median hasn’t increased nearly as markedly.

    Dude, that’s just dishonest. We know the schools aren’t doing that. If you can find me one, then please show me a public school spending $100,000 per student. Wow, that was sad.

  66. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 3:38 pm #

    Sef: Except that a lot of those Apples were given to the schools.

    And today they don’t donate computers? But yes a lot were donated just like today. Even more so….it’s called recycling. (not the top of the line, but very good computers go to schools everyday.)

  67. avatar
    Sef April 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm #

    JRC: Dude, that’s just dishonest.We know the schools aren’t doing that.If you can find me one, then please show me a public school spending $100,000 per student.Wow, that was sad.

    So we find in our midst another poster with “Analogy Deficit Disorder”. Must be the inability to go outdoors and make a snowman or have a snowball fight.

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

    Illustrating the difference between median and mean with an example is dishonest? After you asked for someone to explain the math?

    I made no claim about what the schools are doing, I just said that average was a poor statistic in this instance—because it makes your argument disingenuous. The median is a much more honest statistic in this context.

    Please try to understand the points others are making rather than making a knee-jerk response with a straw man attack based on your own ignorance.

    JRC: Illustrating the difference between median and mean with an example is dishonest? After you asked for someone to explain the math? You know that the Nazis made passive aggressive attacks like that, don’t you? (that was sarcasm, by the way…)

    I made no claim about what the schools are doing, I just called bullshit on your statistic—because it makes your argument disingenuous. The median is a much more honest statistic in this context.

    Please try to understand the points others are making rather than making a knee-jerk response with a straw man attack based on your own ignorance.

  69. avatar
    Rickey April 13, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    JRC: Suranis, the whole U.S. school system is failing.

    That’s quite a generalization. On the basis of what facts do you conclude that the “whole” U.S. school system is failing?

    Most of the schools in my predominately middle-class county are very good. Where there are poor-performing schools elsewhere in the state, the reasons tend to be very complex and solutions are not easy. Poor facilities and underpaid teachers in some school districts are just part of the problem. We also have to consider that living in poverty is not conducive to excelling at academics. A home environment which encourages reading and studying and where children do not go to bed hungry is more likely to produce a well-educated student than a home which has none of those advantages.
    .

  70. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 5:46 pm #

    I think the problem with the average funding issue has been illistrated.

    As for the different levels of funding

    http://www.asha.org/Advocacy/schoolfundadv/Overview-of-Funding-For-Pre-K-12-Education/

    Overview of Funding for Pre-K–12 Education
    Background

    Federal, state, and local governments fund K–12 public education in the United States. Under the Constitution, the state is responsible for public education. Annual funding levels vary dramatically across the country, with an average range from $4,000 to $10,000 for students without disabilities and $10,000 to $20,000 for students with disabilities. The federal government contributes about 10% of the total budget for both groups, primarily in the form of categorical grants to state education agencies. Local taxes generate the bulk of school funding (40%–50%). The heavy reliance on local property taxes causes significant funding differences within and across states. Some states have attempted to address the inequity by developing formulas that help equalize disparities and increase funding to disadvantaged areas.
    Federal Funding

    Federal special education funding comes primarily from two sources: the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). ESEA provides categorical funding to support student achievement in low-income areas. IDEA accounts for the bulk of the federal government’s ongoing contribution to special education.

    That pretty much illustrates that there are marked differences between levels of funding across the US despite the average going up. Finding exactly what levels of funding there are and how that has changed over the last few years would require more time than I am really willing to give this right now.

    But it does illustrate the problems of looking at the average and crying foul. Its a LOT more complex.

  71. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    Rickey: That’s quite a generalization. On the basis of what facts do you conclude that the “whole” U.S. school system is failing? \

    Most of the schools in my predominately middle-class county are very good. Where there are poor-performing schools elsewhere in the state, the reasons tend to be very complex and solutions are not easy. Poor facilities and underpaid teachers in some school districts are just part of the problem. We also have to consider that living in poverty is not conducive to excelling at academics. A home environment which encourages reading and studying and where children do not go to bed hungry is more likely to produce a well-educated student than a home which has none of those advantages.
    .

    Agreed…it’s complex and it’s not the Libertarians fault. But as a whole the educational system is failing. Damn I guess I averaged again. Talk to Keith he’s all about it. You know how it’s being destroyed by Libertarians.

  72. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 7:41 pm #

    Sef:
    Slarti, I’m afraid reality is on the blink again.

    Yeah, because your point was not reality.

  73. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 7:44 pm #

    Suranis:
    I think the problem with the average funding issue has been illistrated.

    As for the different levels of funding

    http://www.asha.org/Advocacy/schoolfundadv/Overview-of-Funding-For-Pre-K-12-Education/

    That pretty much illustrates that there are marked differences between levels of funding across the US despite the average going up. Finding exactly what levels of funding there are and how that has changed over the last few years would require more time than I am really willing to give this right now.

    But it does illustrate the problems of looking at the average and crying foul. Its a LOT more complex.

    So that is the reason for kids to be able to go to schools in different districts….DUH. Exactly my point. Wow you guys are dense. But even beside that point, you just quoted something that shows that even the poorest school are funded better than the average in 85.

  74. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

    So who else is messing with the educational system in the name of offering children “choice of where to go to school” which sounds like a line only a Libertarian could love.

    Actually, who cares, I’m off to wash my shorts for freedom.

    JRC: Agreed…it’s complex and it’s not the Libertarians fault.

  75. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 7:57 pm #

    You guys are all backtracking which is fine…..it’s a complicated issues….but you spoke way too soon.

  76. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 7:59 pm #

    Suranis:
    So who else is messing with the educational system in the name of offering children “choice of where to go to school” which sounds like a line only a Libertarian could love.

    Actually, who cares, I’m off to wash my shorts for freedom.

    Wow backtracking….love it. Wash your shorts….might be full of something other than freedom.

    (I know you said for freedom, but those shorts are full of something)

  77. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2014 at 8:06 pm #

    It wasn’t an example.

    JRC:
    So again show me what school is less funded than in 85 (beside a school that merge or is not longer in existence)Show me a public school that is spending $100,000 a pupil like the dishonest example of 1,1,1,1,100.

    JRC, now you are being desperate. If you look at your own table you will see (Real, adjusted dollars)

    https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

    1985 $3,222 $6,539

    Last I checked $4000 is less than $6,539. That means that on that spread ($4000 to $10,000 present day dollars) that something like 30% – 40% of schools are getting LESS funding in real terms than 1985.

    Look, you’re a libertarian we, get it. There are somethings that I even agree with Libertarians about. But when you start throwing desperate howlers like this you make yourself look silly. Teachers and public education are not the enemy of self reliance, ok?

    JRC: So that is the reason for kids to be able to go to schools in different districts….DUH.Exactly my point.Wow you guys are dense.But even beside that point, you just quoted something that shows that even the poorest school are funded better than the average in 85.

  78. avatar
    JRC April 13, 2014 at 8:11 pm #

    Suranis:
    It wasn’t an example.

    JRC, now you are being desperate. If you look at your own table you will see (Real, adjusted dollars)

    https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

    1985$3,222$6,539

    Last I checked $4000 is less than $6,539. That means that on that spread that something like 30% – 40% of schools are getting LESS funding than 1985

    Look, you’re a libertarian we get it. There are somethings that I even agree with Libertarians about. But when you start throwing desperate howlers like this you make yourself look silly. Teachers and public education are not the enemy of self reliance, ok?

    You are the desperate one. So where is that $100,000 per pupil public school? You really need to step it up.

99999 00000
?????????