NCclimber

Really? How about you posting a direct quote from the OP. and speaking of diversions, here is a good one:

Except Professor Kallend!!! Why are you directing this to me? I never disagreed with those points. The funny thing about this recent tit-for-tat with the perfesser is his claim could be correct. I just asked him to show proof of that claim and he's consistently ducked, dodged and evaded my requests. Same as it ever was...

Start a new thread and we'll see. How about we compare it to the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888?

They might, if perhaps they read the quote word for word and took it at face value... and ignored the rest of his speech.

You mean like claiming a point has been proven when it hasn't?

I'm pretty sure there's been a nationwide shortage for at least 20 years.

Why is this a government role? Why can't private colleges meet the perceived demand? We should ask the government to answer this question. They should fix everything. "Why is this a government role?" I think it's the general mission of public higher eduction to meet the demand of the public it serves. This situation isn't one about creating a new program that would require new funding, it's about choosing where to spend funds that are already allocated for education. This may be oversimplified, but I think you get my point. Why build another law school (when there's already a glut of attorneys) when new nursing schools are sorely needed?

So which one of those guys is saying revenues are not going up? I agree... but this has little if anything to do with Kallend's claim.

And Colin Powell covered up the My Lai Massacre... and statements about tax cuts not leading to higher revenues prove that current federal tax revenues are not at all-time highs... and enforced confidentiality agreements equal the government silencing all of the press. If nothing else, your insights are unique. On March 5, 1933, the Nazis won 44 percent of the popular vote. The Nazis secured 288 seats in the parliament. Along with the 52 seats of the Nationalists their coalition had obtained a majority of 16 seats. The coalition that Hitler led won a majority in the parliament in a democratic election, QED. Hitler became Chanecellor before that election. IMO comparisons of Bush to Hilter are little more than emotional handgrenades. I really don't see how anyone of average intelligence and a basic knowledge of 1930s Germany can liken Bush, the Republican Party or life in the country to that part of Germany's history. The only way to do so (and this requires some spectacular mental gymnastics) is to simply compare indivdual acts, while completely ignoring the magnitude of those actions. To me, the questionable detention of a handful of Americans is not on par with the killing of 6 million citizens.

And Colin Powell covered up the My Lai Massacre... and statements about tax cuts not leading to higher revenues prove that current federal tax revenues are not at all-time highs... and enforced confidentiality agreements equal the government silencing all of the press. If nothing else, your insights are unique.

Just go ahead and tell someone they're full of shit before they even say anything? Is that the new thing among college professors, Dr. Kallend? Thanks Bill. Every one of these statements has been previously posted in SC, yet just TODAY in the DOW thread you claimed that there was nothing to back up my statement on tax revenues. What a stupid post. Really! It's inane. Let me explain it to you. Just because quotes are posted about taxes and revenues,... this doesn't mean they prove any silly old claim you choose to make about revenues. Let me explain it another way, since you seem to be having trouble with this: If air is invisible to the naked eye, this doesn't prove it is free of pollution.

I'm not the one railing against the evidence and scientifically established fact. Could you give some examples of my "railing against the evidence"?

Just go ahead and tell someone they're full of shit before they even say anything? Is that the new thing among college professors, Dr. Kallend? Thanks Bill.

So basically.... you think there should be more fossils? Four links about fossils. (Actually the last one is about punctuated equilibria, a theory concerning fast "bursts" of evolution, eg Cyclids) Talk Origins, eh? What scientific organization are they affiliated with? With your leading questions and implied insults, it seems you're pretty tightly wound on this subject. That said, I'll just move along. Cheerio.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it? Yeah. That's it. That's really stupid. I was being sarcastic. Sorry you missed it. Go read diverborg's post. I generally agree with his points. Do you accept the current scientific consensus about life - from the Big Bang to the present - as indisputable fact? For me, the consensus is the best explanation, at this time. Kind of a "warts and all, but it's clearly superior to any other" theory. For some, this level of acceptance is unacceptable. All in or a target for ridicule.

Anyone else caught George Will's column, yesterday? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/07/15/farewell,_antioch

As for my "not all of us like fuglies" comment, it was meant as a joke, but I guess you weren't in the joking mood. Lighten up, er, pal.

Which ones would those be? It's not very hard to normalize to a given year's dollar and population. The tricky part if figuring out the impact those dollars that remain in the hands of the public have on the overall economy, which effects the GDP, which impacts the tax revenues.

What are your thoughts on the main topic of this thread? Girl got drunk, got wild and now she's just bitter? OR Girl got really drunk and guy took complete advantage of her incapacitated state?

I think there has to be some equalibrium level in which the most taxes are collected, while not dramatically impeding the health of the economy. As far as the question in the OP, I have no clue. I've heard arguements for both sides. Seems like this is something the smartern'shit economists to figure out. Preferably those without an agenda to promote.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it? Yeah. That's it.

LOL That's new one Kallend. A thread goes off on a tangent and you make a silly sounding claim. When called to back it up, you say "Go start your own thread... this one's about the topic in the OP... harrumph, harrumph, harrumph" You do crack me up. Bottom Line: You made a bullshit claim, you can't (or won't) back up.

Taxes have been cut but tax revenue has gone up. Here we go again. Yours is only a meaningful statement if the value of the $ and population growth are accounted for. When that is done, real revenues have NOT gone up. Got any proof to back up that claim? We already beat it to death on here, which is why I wrote "here we go again".. You mean you actually produced inflation-adjusted numbers? Or are you talking about your previous claim (that was never backed up), which just happened to be in a thread that had other topics that got beat to death? It's real simple - you make a claim... a claim that is pretty cut and dried... either it's correct or it's not. Now, instead of doing the kallend two-step, you could just provide proof of it being correct. Having a little reading problem today, are we? We already beat it to death on here, which is why I wrote "here we go again".. That was a different horse. Duck and run, duck and run... Let's all two-step Well, duck and run if you must. If you want yet another debate on tax rates and revenues, start your own thread. No duck and run, here. I'm not the one make unsupportable claims and then ducking requests to back it up. It's not the first time you've done this.

Yeah, the facts speak for themselves when the ladies think you did humanitarian work.

Fixed it.