Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2014, 08:58:00 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 604 605 606 607 608 [609] 610 611 612 613 614 ... 1009
15201  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Comedy Goldmine XI: The Atlas Forum Demilitarized Zone on: August 25, 2009, 11:30:41 pm
I have come to the conclusion that he is either a) a fake poster, or b) mentally retarded. There are no other options.
There is another option c) a mentally retarded fake poster.
15202  Election Archive / 2010 Gubernatorial Election Polls / SC-PPP Gubernatorial - July 2008 on: August 25, 2009, 06:27:56 pm
(link)

Yes I know it's 13 months old but as far as I know there isn't a more recent poll.

542 Likely Voters
4.2% Margin of Error
Conducted July 9-11, 2008

Barrett (R) 31%
Rex (D) 36%

McMaster (R) 36%
Rex (D) 36%

Tanenbaum has since this poll was taken indicated that she will not be running, but I include the numbers below anyway, since they suggest that Barrett wasn't lagging as far behind McMaster as the Rex numbers alone indicate.

Barrett (R) 40%
Tanenbaum (D) 39%

McMaster (R) 39%
Tanenbaum (D) 39%

Breakdowns by gender, party, race, and age available at the link.
15203  General Politics / Economics / Re: Which mid-19th century English monetary school would you belong to? on: August 25, 2009, 03:42:41 pm
Semi-convertibility, as the currency school argues for, is a bastard combination of fiat and specie monies, with the worst aspects of both.

There are good solid reasons to favor fiat currency, provided it is managed responsibly and the mechanisms are in place to enable sufficient economic information to be gathered to make it possible for the central banker to manage a fiat currency.  You also need an economy of sufficient scale to make a fiat currency viable.  While the scale pertained,  the necessary statistics were not capable of being gathered in a timely enough fashion in the first half of the 19th century. For the mid-19h century, specie (i.e., currency) was the best option for a stable economy.
15204  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama's Job Approval 16% Among Birthers on: August 25, 2009, 02:34:34 pm
Whether Americans born abroad have natural-born citizenship or naturalized citizenship granted at birth is a present an obscure constitutional question not particularly subject to.

... one wonders why they felt the need to point out that naturalized citizens are citizens - maybe just clarifying that one state's naturalizations are valid in every other state as well?

No.  Naturalization was already a Section 8 power of Congress, and worded so that States didn't get involved in the process.  Rather the mention of naturalized citizens is a reaction to the Dred Scott decision which held that State citizenship and United States citizenship need not be equivalent. They are included so as to make it clear that for a resident of a State, one cannot hold only one of those citizenships.
15205  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Preceding Poster's Signature Thread IV on: August 25, 2009, 02:12:30 pm
ABC!

Angry Bunnies are Cutesy-wutesy!
15206  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Preceding Poster's Signature Thread IV on: August 25, 2009, 01:32:49 pm
Federalism is good.
15207  General Discussion / Alternative History / A House Divided on: August 25, 2009, 12:13:50 pm
It proved to be a spirited campaign.  There were a total of five presidential debates, one with all three of Carter, Wallace, and Reagan; Reagan getting a single one-on-one debate with Wallace and Carter, and a pair between Carter and Wallace.  No one bothered to hold a debate for Vice Presidential nominees Percy, Church, and Crane.  Wallace made some foreign policy hay over Rockefeller's tentative outreach efforts to the PRC and made Carter seem mushy on defense issues.  Reagan challenged Carter over the economy, since unemployment and inflation were both up to the stratospheric level of 6% each.

The election ended hinging on Illinois where a recount would determine if for the first time since 1824 for the Presidency, and 1836 for the Vice Presidency, the election ended up heading to Congress.


Carter/Percy: 252 EV 38% PV
Wallace/Church: 215 EV 34% PV
Reagan/Crane: 45 EV 27% PV
Illinois: 26 EV (too close to call)

With Reagan holding a 174 vote lead over Carter in the initial results, the Republicans were hopeful they could overtake him, but the Chicago machine made certain that Wallace would have a chance to win in the House, as Reagan ended up getting Illinois' 26 EVs.

The Senate would not be difficult. The Republicans and the Libertarians had both made gains in the Senate, so that the balance of power in that body was 50-41-9.  With a 50 vote bloc, the Republicans could prevent Church from getting the Vice Presidency, but the Libertarians were able to hold out for Goldwater receiving the President pro tem spot in exchange for their votes to enable Percy to get the 51 votes needed for him to become Vice President.

The House was a mess.  No party had a majority of Representatives, let alone State delegations, and the various Independents and Progressives elected from various places made things even more muddy.  Before the House could elect a President they would first need to select a Speaker.

While the Democrats did have a plurality they could cobble into enough votes to elect a Speaker, they had to decide who since Speaker Albert had retired, Majority Leader O' Neill had lost in a three-way race while standing as a Democrat in Massachusetts, thanks to Progressive Party candidate John Kerry taking enough votes to allow the Republican to win the district, and Minority Leader John J. McFall had successfully run for reelection as an Independent rather than as a Democrat.

It took almost a week, and agreeing to some rules changes that weakened the power of the Speakership, but on January 10, Jim Wright of Texas became Speaker of the House of Representatives.

It took another four days before sufficient of the Independents and Progressives were corralled by the Speaker to allow for the House to elect a President on January 14, just 6 days before he was to take office.


Wallace: 26 States
Carter: 5 States
Reagan: 2 States
Divided: 17 States

Thus despite having a plurality of both the Popular and the Electoral votes, despite having come ever so close in Illinois to winning outright, Jimmy Carter would not be President, but instead George Wallace of Alabama would become the first President elected from the old Confederacy since the Civil War.

This would also be the first time since Adams/Jefferson in 1796, that the President and Vice-President would not be elected from the same party.
15208  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the amendments (Amendment XIV) on: August 25, 2009, 10:34:28 am
I don't care about either A.) The purpose of the Constitution - I do not share in its State cult - or B.) The possibility of foreign royalty becoming President. Neither of these matter to me.

Would it be unreasonable to want you to care in a thread about Amendment XIV that the provision on Presidential requirements you are objecting to isn't in Amendment XIV at all, but in Article II Section 1 Clause 5?
15209  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the amendments (Amendment XIV) on: August 25, 2009, 01:54:26 am
Abolish the section regarding nationality requirements. The only reason it exists is to make national-socialists (small 'n', small 's'; the kind that believe in a communal personal identity) sleep easier at night. To Hell with the nativist nitwits.

Beside the fact that that requirement has nothing to do with the XIV Amendment, you're neglecting that the reason for the requirement when it was drawn up was to keep our President from becoming a European princeling.  And if you think that is far fetched, need I point out Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico.
15210  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Preceding Poster's Signature Thread IV on: August 25, 2009, 12:08:30 am
Animated GIFs don't belong in signatures.  A truly impressive waste of bandwidth.
15211  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Preceding Poster's Signature Thread IV on: August 24, 2009, 11:47:46 pm
Vodka is overrated.
15212  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the amendments (Amendment XIV) on: August 24, 2009, 11:42:21 pm
Except as I already pointed out, this has nothing to do with the native born requirement for President.  If one were to do away with that, it really ought to be an Amendment of its own, not tacked on to this one.
15213  Election Archive / 2010 Elections / SC: McMaster running TV ads on: August 24, 2009, 11:34:22 pm
Ten months to the primary, fifteen to the general election, and I saw a TV ad for McMaster tonight for the Gubernatorial race.  It was an Augusta station, so unless he's running it elsewhere, it might have been a test ad, to see how it does. (Augusta's the smallest and hence cheapest TV market that serves the state.)

Was not impressed by the ad.  His main point was that since Obama became President, South Carolina has lost 39,000 jobs, and McMaster is the man to bring them back.  How an Attorney General is supposed to be such an expert at job creation wasn't explained.  The fact that under Sanford, South Carolina has significantly trailed the nation in job creation is conveniently forgotten.  Why you should pick McMaster over any of the other Republicans not even hinted at despite the fact that he'll have at least one major primary opponent in Barrett, with two if Bauer runs.  (I can understand not attacking Barrett by name at this point.  It's too early to go on the attack, and Barrett might not be his major threat by the time the primary rolls around.)

Maybe the ad will work with those who don't follow politics closely, but the sheer hubris of the ad made me laugh out loud.
15214  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Preceding Poster's Signature Thread IV on: August 24, 2009, 06:01:17 pm
He doesn't happen to live in Owings Mills, Maryland, does he?  (A place I recall fondly as being where Wall $treet Week and A.M. Weather came from.  You youngsters don't know what you missed by not seeing A.M. Weather, which was a 15-minute daily program only a weather geek could love.)
15215  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama's Job Approval 16% Among Birthers on: August 24, 2009, 05:15:12 pm
Such as, they think it means - or  even can be interpreted to mean - "born in the USA". It doesn't. It's a clear-as-daylight phrase that means "is a citizen by birthright", ie the opposite of a naturalized citizen.

That assumes that a person cannot be granted naturalized citizenship at birth.  A hyper-picky reading of the XIVth Amendment could be interpreted in a manner that would deny native-born citizenship to a child born abroad of American citizens.  I don't think the debates held in Congress when they sent the XIVth to the states would back that interpretation.  If anything, considering that the debates indicated that those born in the territory of the United States to foreign nationals who had not undertaken steps to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States were not to be included in the automatic citizenship grant, reciprocity would require that the children of American citizens are natural born citizens, no matter where the birth takes place.

Aside:
I wonder how many birthers hold the logically inconsistent position that the children of illegal immigrants need not be granted citizenship under the XIVth?  (A position I agree with, but one that logically undercuts the birther argument, that if Barry was born Kenya he would be ineligible to the Presidency.)
15216  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the amendments (Amendment XIV) on: August 24, 2009, 04:51:05 pm
I think it should amended so that French, Greeks, Italians, British, Canadians, or Australians should be able to serve as President. So, my vote is to modify it. Gennifer Granholm should be able to run.

The XIVth has nothing to do with that.  Besides, now that we have a Kenyan as President, isn't that provision effectively moot? Wink

More seriously, the XIVth needs to be reworded so that it can't be interpreted in a manner that gives corporate persons any Constitutional rights beyond those concerning the obligation of contracts and freedom of assembly.
15217  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gay Marriage Litigator Seeks to Break Up California on: August 24, 2009, 12:49:51 am
Given Yolo County's politics, it sure does act more coastal than inland.  I could see possibly splitting Sacramento County, but the delta part definitely needs to be part of Coastal.  A purely geographic split would be ignoring county boundaries more, with much of Lake County becoming part of Northern rather than Coastal California.
15218  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Mass protests against law granting women's rights in Mali on: August 24, 2009, 12:00:39 am

c'mon Dibbz, you know that's not a real "choosing"






Wow, that's a poorly designed graphic.

Indeed. What does anything represent?

Very roughly speaking the arc swept by each sector is proportional to the % of women in the country that believe it's OK to be abused.  Thus Iraq at 59% is roughly twice as wide as Haiti at 29%, which is roughly twice as wide as Honduras at 15.5%.  So instead of a pie chart basd n 100%, it's one based on 731.8%, which isn't pie shaped and has some funky graphics to further confuse the issue in misleading ways.
15219  General Discussion / Alternative History / Conventional Wisdom on: August 23, 2009, 11:51:20 pm
As expected, the Democratic convention that July in New Orleans is a coronation for George Wallace.  The real question is what steps might Wallace be willing to undertake to heal the fracturing Democrats.  Quite a few of the remaining liberals in the party, along with those who had already bolted, had met the week before in New Orleans for what had been billed as a meeting of the Progressive Democratic Alliance.

The various Independent Democrats had in several States formed splinter parties to nominate them for local or Congressional office, but they knew they weren't well enough organized to run a Presidential candidate of their own.  Yet if Wallace didn't take steps to placate them, they'd bolt, and in several States, Wallace would have to make last minute efforts to put his name on the ballot if the local Democratic Party refused to back him.

Wallace knew that and was willing to make several concessions.  The Democratic platform would be a model of brevity in 1976 as many issues were sidestepped, and he accepted as his running mate, Senator Frank Church of California. Peace was salvaged for now, but it was a peace not unlike that the Whigs had obtained for their party in 1852.

Distracted by his training, Rockefeller was able to stay aloof from the Presidential nomination contest. Secretary of State Stassen had hoped for Rockefeller's support, but without it he declined to do more than allow his name be put in nomination. Stassen attracted no support in either Iowa or New Hampshire and would receive only a couple of favored son delegates from Minnesota.

Vice President Carter would not have an easy road to the nomination.  While quite a few Democrats had bolted from the Wallace-led Democrats to the Republicans, putting one at the top of the ticket ruffled feathers.  Several other candidates vied for the nomination, of which Senator Percy of Illinois, Senator Packwood of Oregon, and Governor Sargent of Massachusetts are the most notable.  (In this timeline, Michael Dukakis did not unseat Sargent in 1974 and he never becomes Governor of Massachusetts.)

Percy comes in first place in the Iowa caucuses, while Sargent comes in first in New Hampshire.  Carter is able to come in a close second in both contests and is able to portray both losses as due to neighbor state influences.  No one candidate has a majority of delegates supporting him by the time the gavel bangs to open the 1976 Republican National Convention in New York City.

With 2356 delegates voting, the 1st round of balloting was:

Sargent 882 (1179 needed to select)
Carter 842
Percy 481
Packwood 101
Reagan 8 (Reagan had already accepted the Libertarian nomination two weeks earlier in Philadelphia, his running mate was Rep. Phil Crane of Illinois.  But there were those who hoped to lure him back to the Republicans.)
Others 32

For the fourth round, Packwood threw his support behind Sargent:

Sargent 1003 (1179 needed to select)
Carter 852
Percy 491

Both Carter and Sargent courted Percy, with both offering him the running mate slot.  As Percy would later recount in his memoirs, he finally chose to back Carter because he taught Sunday school. Percy had come to the attention of his own mentor, Joseph McNabb, who had been president of Bell & Howell before Percy, when McNabb had been teaching the Sunday school class he was in and had been impressed by the then young Chuck Percy.

So on the sixth round, Percy backed Carter and the Republicans would leave New York united around a Carter/Percy ticket.
15220  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Mock confirmation vote on: August 23, 2009, 09:22:36 pm
AYE.  Frankly, I think if she does end up being a surprise, it'll be because she ends up being more restrained in her judicial decisions than expected, which at times will please the left and at other times anger it.
15221  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the Lockerbie bomber have been released? on: August 23, 2009, 08:53:13 pm
Not a one of you - not one of you - right-libertarians are consistent at all. It's unbelievable how little ideological spine the lot of you have; maybe a single vertebrae among you. "Libertarianism" is for you jerkholes whatever is furthest to the right any given day of the week.

Except I'm not a libertarian.  I do have some libertarian tendencies that make me skeptical of government.  For instance, I think we have far too many crimes on the book, such as those pertaining to drugs, gambling, and prostitution, but I can't imagine a more fundamental crime to have on the law books and to punish as severely as possible than a deliberate act of murder.

If you're gong to argue that murder should not be a crime, that's not libertariansm; that's anarchy.
15222  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Prenups and postnups on: August 23, 2009, 08:46:50 pm
A corporation is by its nature a public entity.
No.  You are wrong.  Please substantiate your point.

Corporations were established under government aegis to enable financial activities that individual persons either could not achieve or were unable to undertake due to the risk involved.  Without the power of government backing them, corporations could not exist.

Quote
They were not established for the purpose of committing fraud as you advocate.
Ad Hominem attack; please refrain.

I do not advocate committing fraud.  Maybe you interpreted it that way, in which case I tell you now you did not read it correctly and you should reread it again.

How else should I interpret a deliberate effort to obfuscate control of assets so as to avoid paying the obligations one would otherwise incur in a lawsuit as anything but fraud?

Quote
Property rights require governments to secure them, and therefore whatever public records is deemed necessary to have in order to properly secure those rights for the benefit of all.
Straw man argument; how does a private corporation whose shareholders are not public knowledge fail to secure property rights?  And what does have to do with the topic at hand?  Please stay on topic.

Without government recognition there is no means to enforce property rights.  Why should the shareholders be able to disclose their share ownership only at the times it is beneficial for them to do so? An adverse decision in a lawsuit creates a right to property for the successful plaintiff. Public knowledge of shareholdings enables those plaintiffs to have their rights enforced more easily.

Quote
Assuming that you aren't asked, as any competent attorney representing your ex-wife should do in a divorce case, to give a complete and honest list of your assets.
As you wish.  Save the Children LLC owns the house.  Save the Children LLC is 100% owned by a Panama trust with you as the sole beneficiary and you as the trustee.  There.  Now it is 100% lawsuit and divorce court proof because you don't own anything (trusts are now owned).

You are debating semantics instead of the actual issue at hand.

The fact that you are a trust beneficiary is an asset, so under an equal 50% division of property, the spouse should gain half the beneficial value of that trust.  So adding the layer of the trust does not result in any shielding of assets unless one lies to the court about being the beneficiary and/or the value of the benefit.

Quote
Assuming that the divorce court doesn't give the wife 50% or more of the options.
The options are not issued until another shareholder is forced into the holdings.  Dude.  Seriously.  This is not rocket science.

An equitable divorce settlement should provide, in addition to you turning over to the spouse half of the existing shares, that any additional shares of this LLC, when issued to you, are split evenly with the spouse upon issuance.



Quote
Lies of omission are still lies Richius.  If I were ever a divorce court judge and discovered such a shenanigan in one spouse's financial dealings, I'd assign the options to the other spouse's share of the property at that 1 valuation.
You can't assign what isn't issued.  You don't get it, do you?

But a court can set an order for what happens when they are issued, in this case one that you are required to hand over half of the shares you receive to your spouse.  That potential issue is an asset, the same as any other.  You seem to be overlooking that the primary purpose of courts of equity is indeed, equity.

Your shenanigans seem to be based on hoping your spouse hires an incompetent attorney and/or you being evasive or untruthful when required to make a listing of your assets.

Wouldn't it be simpler and far less risky to simply hire a competent attorney to draw up a prenuptial agreement for you and the spouse to sign before the wedding?
15223  General Discussion / Alternative History / Senate Troubles on: August 23, 2009, 07:19:12 pm
I thought I'd resume working on this timeline, if only to encourage others to get of their duffs and work on their own timelines.

There were plenty of people upset at Bobby Kennedy's decision to switch parties.  George Wallace wasn't one of them at first.  While he wouldn't have minded crushing Bobby at the Democratic Convention in New Orleans (not New York City as in OTL), Kennedy's inglorious retreat was just as satisfying, or so George Wallace thought for the first few days.  December 1975 proved to be a tumultuous month politically as various effects of Kennedy's decision played out.

By the time the second session of the 94th Congress convened on Monday, January 5, 1976, two more Democratic Senators had bolted to the Republicans, and three others had declared themselves Independent. Surprisingly Teddy Kennedy wasn't one of them, as he chose for now at least to remain a Democrat.  A Republican defected to the Libertarians, leaving the Republicans with a 47-46 plurality over the Democrats, with four Libertarians and three independents holding the balance.

The Libertarians offered to support Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania as Majority Leader in return for Goldwater receiving the largely ceremonial post of President pro tem.  Rather than engage in a deal which they saw as enhancing the prospects of the Libertarian Party, the Republicans rejected it, so the Libertarians remained neutral in the mid-session leadership fight in exchange for receiving a position for one Libertarian on each Senate committee.  Combined with the votes of the disaffected Independents, this was enough to allow the Democrats to retain organizational control of the Senate for now.

Bobby's party switch had  scuttled Rockefeller's plans to run for the Senate in New York as a means of remaining aloof from the contest of who should get the Presidential nomination.

He needed something to serve as a plausible distraction.  Since running for the Senate was out, Rockefeller needed something else. During his ten years as Governor of New York, it had already been remarked by some that Nelson had an Edifice Complex, so it was not at all unexpected that he would put his energy into an infrastructure project.  Gaining sufficient bipartisan support, Rockefeller signed into law on July 4, 1976 the Providing for America's Transportation: the Railway Improvement, Overhaul, and Transformation Act, commonly known as the PATRIOT Act.  It committed the United States to not only revitalize the existing train tracks, but to building true high-speed rail.  By 1983, the Northeast Corridor would be served by USA (Ultrafast Surface Aerodynamic) trains that ran at a scheduled 150 mph and could go faster during tests.  Boston to Washington would take 3 hours, nonstop, city center to city center, with additional lines under construction.
15224  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the Lockerbie bomber have been released? on: August 23, 2009, 01:05:38 pm
No, mainly because he never showed any contrition for what had been convicted of doing. If he wants to assert he was innocent, let him either prove he was wrongfully convicted or die in prison.

"I loves me some prisons. I especially love the tax to support prisons. Prisons are awesome. In fact, I don't know what society did before they were invented (despite the fact that prisons have only existed since the Roman era, and individuals were exiled from society before their invention.) <3333 the prison-industrial complex."

You make me sick, you worthless hypocrite. I expect such drivel from States, but not from you.

Frankly, I'd have preferred a quick execution, since I am pro-capital punishment, once he had been found guilty and his appeals had been exhausted.  As for concerns over cost, for a prisoner sentenced to a life term who has exhausted his appeals, if he gets cancer, while I can see the necessity for the prison to provide palliative care, the cost of cancer treatment should be borne by the prisoner or his family.
15225  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the amendments (Amendment XIII) on: August 23, 2009, 01:04:12 pm
Modify it.  It's not strong enough, as it allowed various forms of debt peonage to survive as a substitute for slavery.
Pages: 1 ... 604 605 606 607 608 [609] 610 611 612 613 614 ... 1009


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines