Lucky...

So if I got a car for free, it was my only car, I wouldn't care how it ran? Brilliant. If it's the only one I have I care more, if I have several I might be inclined to be careless. With a source like that, who can argue? If I', interested, I would respect what they had to say, whether free or not. You have made a ridiculous argument for the lower brkts paying less/no taxes.

In response to what? Is it that hard to post what I wrote and address each statement or paragraph? Really, what can I do with this mess?

In response to???????? What's your point, what statements? Post them.

Right, because you edited that in after I responded to the unedited post. Not saying you were trying to be dishonest, just saying that you can't hold me accountable for running from it when I hadn't seen it until you pointed it out now. Perhaps you can address my scientific renderings that an element can be both the cause and the catalyst, unlike your constant inferrences that 1 element is one and another diff element is the other, as in 1 cause and 1 catalyst. You are running form that, using binary logic when it is not intelligent. Do me a favor and address that. It's 2am here, I have to go to school tomorrow, I will address all the rest then. Go address the dual cause/catalyst issue.

YES, BECAUSE THE ONE I POSTED AND THE ONE YOU POSTED ARE THE SAME, YET YOU INSIST THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND MINE IS DISHONEST. Post 49 I brought in: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catalyst 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences In post 50 you accused me of: It seems you were intellectually dishonest with your quoted definition of catalyst. You had to cherry pick one definition from several, most of which don't support your assertion. Why, for example, did you not choose the first one that fit the context of our discussion? Here it is: And then posted: cat•a•lyst (ktl-st) n. 2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences: "A free press ... has remained ... a vital catalyst to an informed and responsible electorate" (Robert O'Neal). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. You've completely lost your mind, the definition I posted was the EXACT SAME ONE YOU POSTED AFTER, YET YOU SAY MINE WAS DISHONEST. Dude, you're just silly-gone w/o a clue.

Lucky, this runs deeper than just a bunch of foreigners that don't speak english. Blame your federal, state and local governments for catering to the unwillingness of many foreigners to learn english. Its good business practice to broaden your scope of potential customers, but at the same time businesses share some of the blame too, as do we all. edit: grammar So your solution s/b to discriminate against non-English speakers? What's your solution the gov should adopt? You've stated your problem, tell me your solution.

And yet you post none of it......why am I not surprised? BTW, Rush Limbaugh and his staff do a lot of research, so what? Show me, don't try to name-drop, hell ya haven't even done that. I don't give a rat's fucking ass what people think of me or my opinions, I try to find the most reliable and objective data and make my argument, perhaps you're in the running for the people's choice award. OMG, let me retroactively go suck some cock to get that back. You're so stuck on yourself, your position as self-anointed intellectual leader. Hey, post something and teach us all, or just run on about your popularity and position in the clique. I just don't care about that. Right, because I don't agree with you. And what you don't understand is that a cause and a catalyst can be the sole factor to an event and the timing of said event, something you inferred couldn't be. Of course you will deny any such inference. I don't mind being arrogant when I've made my case and it's solid. Many others on here want to never cite any source but their diddy and walk around arrogantly. You've yet to assert anything but an opinion and haven't cited anything on this issue that I can recall, yet you want to anoint yourself an expert and have that carry. Hell, if you've studied this issue extensively then go ahead and share it, you must have a wealth of knowledge that you're hoarding. I slashed your inference that an element can't be causal and a catalyst. I did so thru 3 independent sources as compared to your zero with your self-anointed higher intellect. And you corrected a word and emboldened it. I don't have a major problem spelling, hell, I took upper division English classes as electives, but I type fast and am not an efficient typist, so I make errors that I'm not gonna proofread for a posting forum. You did correct a spelling error and draw attention to it. POST YOUR BRILLIANCE THAT YOU HAVE LEARNED VIA THE SEMINARS.

That is a fitting useage and context of the word, "catalyst." See, you drop these ridiculous assertions and don't even cite any source for a defintion of the form of the word that you find more correct. You've basically just written: You're dishonset because........er, uh.......hmmm; I'm self-anointed briilant, that's why. POST WHAT FORM OF THE WORD YOU WOULD USE AND WHY MINE IS INCORRECT. So instead of a dictionary correction on your part, I get a barfly analogy; you just lost stock in the minds of intelligent people everywhere. You can't intelligently tell me my definition is wrong, and then fail to even take a stab at an alternate definition/usage of the word, can you? And worse yet, drop a horny barfly analogy. But I'll play to further my demonstration that you prefer barfly analogies to cogent definitions. So with your analogy you are saying: - The bar is the sole catalyst - The patrons assembling are the cause So what if these same people met in a parking lot or had a bonfire out in the desert somewhere with no accomodations, what is/are the catalyst(s) and what is/are the cause(s)? Would the parking lot or empty desert be the catalyst? Or would the people meeting, the booze and the desire to be together be the cause and catalyst of any sex that was had? Look at my last post in this thread, foreign to you I actually posted a couple scientific sites that refer to 1 single element being the cause and the catalyst simultaneously. When I reffer to binary logic, I'm referring to people using loigic that is either yes or no; I'm actually surprised to see you use that logic, I didn't think you did. But as for you and this issue of the banking / mortgage mess, I think you decided it was mostly Gramm and then you built your thoughts/explanation from the top down. And I look at this mess as the interest rates being a catalyst and largely causal too, Gramm was accessory to it. Evidence of this is found by the signing of Gramm in Nov 99 and the mess not kicking off until the int rates dropped. Of course you could argue that when the rates dropped that was the catalyst to the cause: Gramm. Again, that's my argument, that the int rate was the primary event that made this happen and is therefore the cause and the catalyst. We can only draw opinion, as Gramm didn't have a chance to self-destruct for very long w/o theint rates dropping so low; there is a very small sample size from which to draw evidence. We can be assured that the culmination of Gramm and low rates was the cause, the apportionment is what's up for grabs and that we disagree upon. I oush virtually all, probbakly 80% to teh low rates. Hell, you even agree that w/o the low rates that Gramm would have been a minimal effect, so with that I say the low rates were the catalyst and most of the cause, you do see now that 1 element can be both, right?

Oh my god, I am so excited that the a great and brilliant guy like you praises me (bends down and kisses JCD's feet). You are so brilliant and always right, that's what you say anyway. I hang on yourr every compliment. (Underlining to emulate JCD as he is my eternal hero) Right, because I disagree in part with you, I am wrong. What a joke. What you are saying is that an element can't both be causal and a catalyst. WRONGO, GENIUS. While democracy does not directly influence child mortality it does, however, indirectly influence it by increasing female literacy which is a fundamental determinant of child mortality. In this sense, democracy acts as a catalyst to lowering child mortality and can within certain bounds be thought of as a causal determinant of child mortality. AND............... http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3vjT9ALxHUC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=can+a+catalyst+be+causal&source=bl&ots=aOKJ9MVK3U&sig=VmqaUHEbLkjUK2Tm-0nwDm1q6IU&hl=en&ei=z6TiSpTZGpPQ8QajspjmAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=can%20a%20catalyst%20be%20causal&f=false PAGE 17 toward the top of the page - Thus, we should call any agent that acts as a catalyst of a causal mechanism, speeding up an induction period for other agents, a cause in its own right. Quit embarrassing yourself, your inference that causes and catalysts are completely separate is flat wrong. So, even tho traditionally, causes and catalysts are separate elements, they don't have to be and the int rate with this mess is one of those IMO. I feel that the int rate lowering was virtually the entire cause of this mess and when they lowered and stayed down that catalyzed and accelerated the mess, Gramm complimented it and cause did to go deeper. You feel that Gramm was the basic cause and int rates were the catalyst. Who knows who's right, I respect your opinion, you don't respect mine. Political science is a bastard science in that you cannot replay the experiment and make constant observations from which to draw your theories. So we watch it once and make guesses, there is no independent variable that we can separate and test several of them from which to really narrow things down and establish the dependent variable, so we watch and make guesses based upon the little info we have. This is why you have to take such a large sample size over time with poli-sci, you can't run duplicate experiments at the same time to increase your simultaneous sample size. Well, you're the authority, whatever you say is lined with fucking gold and has no source virtually at any time. Between your constant underlining and arrogant demeanor, you want me to believe you before you post. You almost never post any citations to support your thoughts. Altho we are basically on the same page on issues, I dislike arrogance that cannot be backed up, arrogance that is able to be backed is ok in my world and I certainly carry some of that with me. Quit the grammar quiz and post some supporting substance.

And I agree with that. Taht doesn't mean it has to be the only language tho, but I am critical of immigrants who don't learn basic English as well. If I get a chance to get out of here and they speak other than English, I would be self-obligated to learn that language.

Yea, no hard feelings, just sayin. By calling him a dipshit for rejecting the idea of uni-care even tho he hasn't had an HC for years and would take it if it passes, yet is ardently against it. That's a dipshit whether he's my friend or not. I'm sure he calls me that for wanting HC and promoting Obama care, yet my desires are all consistent, his contrast. Yes and yours must be to be pretentious when you see a friend do stupid shit and act as if its normal. Of course we know this issue is really about anti-ini-care, not friendship; you are transgressing. Actually you stated that you were shaking your head. I don't care, I understand it is entirely about uni-care. You see, you say you're a doctor, you have everything to lose her and this is again, a transgression about that. With Obama: - Your taxes will rise - If uni-care ever took ahold here and pushed private care to a minimum your wages would fall to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now I getcha, you're defending your position and I don't blame you, I hope you don't blame me for mine.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catalyst 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences Sure, so the low rates were a catalyst, we agre, I think they were also causal in that I don't believe the mortgage wess would have happened at all or very slightly and shortly absent the low rates; that makes them causal. I have never waivered from my assertion that the mess was caused by and catalyzed by the low rates, Gramm may have accellerated the mess, but didn't cause it. You may have a different opinion, but I haven't waiverd on mine. I don't think the mess would have happened w/o low rates, so I believe the mess was primarily caused by and catalyzed by low int rates. If you want to drag out 4 pages on the difference between causation and catalyzation, enjoy, it's basically semantic. Or we can discuss whether an element can be the cause and the catalyst, that'll be fun. Whatever language you want to use, I believe that this mess wouldn't have occurred without low int rates. Reason being, the whole mess spiralled around increasing house values, which couldn't happen unless they were artificially inflated by the false principla replacing the dissappearing int cost of a mortgage. Right and it's possible and IMO probable that there would be nothing derrogatory realized by the deregulation absent the low rates. I noticed you didn't reply to my assertion that nothing happend from Nov 99 until late 2003, as that's when int rates started falling, give or take. I feel the entirety of the mess centered around low int rates and the int rate was dropped due to a stagnate economy, the economy was stagnate due to tax cuts, my friends. I think it was duel causation, Gramm and low rates. The rates were catalyzing and w/o them no measureable harm would be noticed. And the cause. Agree. Disagree and if it did, it would be negligible, as the banks would stop the foreclosure bleeding before it got too far. We would still have had the mess w/o Gramm and with low rates. If Gramm alone was enough, why did it take until the low rates 4 years later for it to implode? No, because, as I posted all Gramm did was to: - Allow banks and other fin inst to merge - Allow institutions that didn't dabble in mortgage to do so Even if we had the old system before Gramm, low rates would create artificial prinicipal value in real estate, so this still would have happened.

It's all about the quality of the discussion - low quality merits low effort response. Someone like Marg - much higher response. You mistake quantity for quality, also. What I don't mistake are people like you running from data, as you can run the rhetoric about your diddy and your diddy's diddy and how they did things. But we all have that, data, in large numbers and crossing it for added support when available, tells all. You get stuck with not being able to answer data so you skate and then become derrogatory. No secret. If you want to disprove me then ask and I will yet again post the mountain of data I have before.....I won't stay up waiting.

OMFG - what an hilarious end to this work week! And your history shows that you're quite that type, much more than jcd is. I'm maticulous with data and supporting evidence, at least as much as I can be. We're all learning here, some are just rejecting the obvious - YOU. Notice how you pipe in to deny, reject, etc but you rarely to never provide any substance?

Yea, they were a very universal catalyst tho, they would have catalyzed the mess with or w/o Gramm. That's why I believe they were primarily causal too. Good, we're in agreement, the most compelling feature of this mess were the low int rates. I agree that Gramm was a bad idea, corporations need more regulation, but even with Gramm, w/o low int rates, the mess would be either non-existent or minimal.

This is what always confuses me. Illegals ALREADY are getting free healthcare, right now - but some people are still concerned that illegals "might" get it. Great point, now they just create an emergency, go to ER, get the care and the hospital can waste their time and go after them, which they don't. See why I called him a dipshit? And who chided me for that?

In order to be in this country permanently you need to be a citizen. In order to be a citizen you need to know the language. You may want to double check the requirements if you dont believe me. Not actually true. You're sort of correct if you're only talking about "General Naturalization Requirements". However, that is not the only way a person may remain in the US. It also doesn't address individuals that may not have learned English as a child yet were born in the US. It also does address the issue of a foreign born spouse of a US citizen that might not speak English. Or the people who may have legally immigrated, learned English well enough to pass the rigorous test of up to 3 sentences read and up to 3 written, then didn't use English and lost what little proficiency they had. I don't recall a recurrency requirement.

Or as Steve Martin says, "I can't believe the people in France don't have the common courtesy to speak Engish."

That's because they speak Mexican over there (insert Bush voice). I thought they spoke Latin? Isn't that the main language in Latin America? LOL. That's too complex for Bush.

Isn't that cute and see, your party is doing the same thing, which is why we will probably have a public option. Fart and joke around and you lose all the way. I was talking to a Republican friend of mine, he calls himself that altho he has the political intellect of a 5th grader, and I asked him if the HC goes thru that he hates so much, will he sign up for it. BTW, he hasn't had it for years like me. He said he would. I asked him if he thinks it is so bad then why would he contribute to its awefulness. He said he feared illegasl would get it. So this dipshit wants himself to go w/o HC so some illegals *might* get it. I just have to shake my head. wow... I just have to shake my head. So what, I have friends who run the scale from brilliant to dipshit; don't we all? To me, if a program would help you and you reffuse it for some traditional reason with no function, that clsssifies them as a dipshit. Maybe a descent guy, but a dipshit. Kinda like, get out of the way of the bus before it runs you over. If my best friend wouldn't move, he would still be my best friend, but a dipshit. Let's not use neo-con binary reasoning here, friendship and intelligence are often not parallels.

In order to be in this country permanently you need to be a citizen. In order to be a citizen you need to know the language. You may want to double check the requirements if you dont believe me. Barely. http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=1022&z=44 The USCIS officer will ask you to read up to three sentences in English and to write up to three sentences in English that are dictated to you. The officer will also determine your ability to speak English during the course of the interview. Yea, you have to be real English literate.

We live in the USA. The strength of any country is a common language. IMO, English should be the only language used by our government. Really? I thought it was a stong economy, great social structure, just government, etc. I guess you can transpose any word in there and argue your point. The strength of any country is a fill in the blank.

That's because they speak Mexican over there (insert Bush voice).

For sure, but that's what it takes to make a point sometimes. I even wrote that brevity is not what I would be accused of. But just because I'm not always concise doesn't mean I'm not precise. Then don't boldface it. You appear to be one of those over-meticulous, anal-retentive, OCD types, so perfect grammar is more important than substance. That's not an insult, a lot of people are like that, I used to be like that with internet discussion until I realized it distracted from the point. I enjoy talking the point too much. I can see people's tank runnin glow when they defer to grammar, syantax, etc. OTOH, I write legal docs sometimes and I'm insanely anal-retentive. You can't even use contractions with legal docs, it's bizzare. And concission is very important too or you'll lose the judge. I just think that posting boards are not teh place for nit-pickiness with spelling, that is, if you have a point to make. I don't think that with Gramm-Leach-Bliley it would have occurred at all. All Gramm did was to allow, "opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. So it allowed them to become big and to work outside their normal areas, in a lay sense. Nothing happened until the interest rates dropped; NOTHING. So the int rates, to me, are the primary cause for the mess, Gramm allowed them to get deeper faster, but w/o the ponzi scheme of house values artificially inflating weekly lenders would not have sucked themselves into that. But even if the mess did start w/o low int rates, it would have been shallow and short-lived, since the low int rates are what caused the ponzi spiralling of values. Again, Gramm was signed in Nov 99 and yet nothing happened until 2003-04 or so, so why not earlier? The int rate was too high to fasciliate a runaway mess.

Fair enough, but the intent of the right is death at its extremes, the intent of the lefft at its extremes is property destructionand killing babies. That's because your definition of babies is different that Roe v Wade justices as a majority. You call a fetus a baby, I call it a fetus. Much of the world agrees with Roe :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png[url] Also, funny attitude to have that abortion is wrong; we need to care for the babies, yet ensuring HC for all is also wrong. Ya kinda find yourself walking in circles.