Here's an idea: how about you tell us which things the administration said about the US deaths in Libya were actually true. Because that will take less time.

Let's just keep it simple: the entire story about a spontaneous demonstration and a mob angry about some video on YouTube was completely fabricated. They knew it wasn't true, and that's been obvious since the day it happened. Today's email dump makes it even more clear. Purposeful, deliberate lying about the death of an ambassador and other Americans, all in the name of tamping down some prospectively unpleasant buzz that wouldn't resonate with the "Al Qeda is on the run!" narrative. Of course you, just like everyone else, already know this. Have fun being a part of theatrics, but just remember that pretending it's not so doesn't make you come across as any more credible. It's kind of embarrassing, actually.

Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

The major Perl conference is coming up. If you want to network with people and companies that are still active with Perl, that would be a great place for you to be.

http://www.yapcna.org/yn2015/

Not at all. It summarizes a causal relationship. The disingenuous GP is the one that says, "Having little money is a case of having little money." He doesn't address the why, whereas I'm pointing out that it's the lack of specific action that causes the lack of desired results.

There are plenty of poor white people who are poor for their own cultural reasons. The fact that you think culture is the same as skin color shows what a confused person you are. Culture is about behavior, not pigment. Avoiding that reality is just more PC deflection on your part. Nice try. Well, not really.

No, it's not. Poverty is caused by not doing the things that make you prosperous. Certainly a kid born into a household where nobody does the things necessary to provide a prosperous environment is a victim indeed. The parents are the only ones responsible for that, period (yeah, yeah, we can make exceptions to that ... women who are raped and never the less bear the child, and don't take advantage of endless opportunities to allow the child to be adopted into better circumstances, etc).

A kid born into a family where there is no culture of learning, or creativity, of movement towards the things that have lifted untold millions out of poverty ... that kid is poor because of the culture into which she was born. Not because there is no prospect for a comfortable life in the world, but because those prospects are being squashed by the local culture. In some cases, that culture is no larger than the single parent. Or it might be the size of a multi-generational household. Or a whole city block. Or an entire nation-state. But it's cultural, pure and simple.

In order to avoid having to give up on your moral relativism and turn in your PC/SJW card, you'll pretend that you just read someone talking about skin color. The fact that you so reflexively resort to that perspective in order to avoid talking about the real problem is, ironically, a stellar display of either disingenuous, craven intellectual dishonesty (or just a juvenile lack of rhetorical skills) on your part, or the sign of someone who really hasn't thought this through.

Ah, an "addressor" in our midst. Say what you, mean. Tear down people who have something so you can spread it around, right? No. Places like west Baltimore are saturated in lavish education spending, free or heavily subsidized transportation (and walkable blocks from places without even needing it), awash in grant money that's just looking for ways to turn abandoned properties into livable homes and viable businesses, and it's been run by people at the legislative and executive levels (since you're so obsessed with this) roughly the same color as those who live there. Health and legal expenses? Covered by taxpayer-funded medical care and legal clinics where you can hear the crickets chirping for lack of interest in use other than when someone's arrested for street crime.

We've been "addressing" those issues, lavishly, for decades. Miles away, there's prosperity. In that spot? People living in fear of the local street gangs and those squatting in abandoned homes and businesses. Why? Because the members of those gangs, the thugs who make that area intolerable as a place to live or run a business, have safe haven, culturally, in the households in which they were so passively raised. Ask the people who live there, and they'll tell you that's exactly the problem. "Addressing" that problem means (ready?) not tolerating the crime. And that means police presence and activity. But we're being told, by the president no less, that what's really needed is a less visible and active police force. And indeed, the police in that area have dialed it way back in the last few weeks ... and surprise! The violence level, including murder on the street, has surged hugely.

Just what you look for when deciding where to build your next fire-proof retail store, right?

Really, you're going to split those hairs?

OK, so really the GP is saying that the only reason we have people in poverty is because we have other people who aren't in poverty. Which is nonsense.

Prosperity is not a fixed-size meal to be spread around. If it were, we'd all be living like paupers because the population has grown so much. Prosperity is created, and people of modest means create it all the time. Then they become the ones who are resented for no longer being impoverished. Too bad, they earned it. The fact that they are no longer impoverished is not what's keeping someone else from having a better life.

So, impoverished people will suddenly start raising kids in two-parent households, or start teaching kids to read and think critically and have a work ethic ... if we can only just limit what CEOs earn? If we can just tear down immoral prosperity, that will fix the broken household and neighborhood cultures that prevent prosperity from taking root in those places? Are you even listening to yourself?

How about CEOs that make 50X? Does that pass your moral standard? 49.5%? 49.4%? When exactly does a business owners or director's pay become "moral." What is the standard you're using? Do you really mean that morality is based on statistics, not on actual principles? You agree that the person who runs a company is worth more than a person who sweeps the floor at that company. Why? What MORAL grounds to you have for that distinction? Be specific. And then in one percent pay increments, start describing exactly when it's suddenly immoral.

Because once you nail that down, you'll see how you've just set yourself up to be the immoral one for making more money, yourself, than someone else does. By someone else's standards (if we use your model), you yourself pure evil for not being as poor as someone else. How DARE you live a lifestyle so rich that you can afford the time to sit around expressing opinions on the internet! Other people don't have that luxury, so you must be immorally prosperous. If you stop being that prosperous, that will finally other people to be prosperous, right?

Yeah, right.

Which is fine until you're killed by someone who irrationally thinks you're responsible for their poverty. Or your home loses half its value because a change in the local demographics means an encroaching street crime problem. Indifference doesn't change the problem you'll have renegotiating your upside down mortgage. But that's fine, you're much too cool to worry about such stuff.

Yes, there can be racist cops, just like there are racist black people. That has nothing to do with the assertion that the DC police only went after this quadruple murderer because the killer is black and victims are white. DC police go after killers every day. Given the local demographic, most of the killers are black, just like most of their victims. The GP wants to imagine that the DC police don't ever go after killers of black victims, which is BS on the face of it.

What are you talking about? I'm not comparing the lower crime rates in Appalachia to the higher crime rates in west Baltimore. I'm addressing the GP's argument that it's the fact there are rich people in the world that we have poverty in those areas. The entire concept is laughable.

So what do you propose? Use government power to force minority mothers to marry, and to force the fathers or children to stay at home, become educated, and care enough to raise children who will actually attend school? Are you saying that a kid who is born into a household with one young, under-educated parent is going to be starting out life with that disadvantage because other people aren't poor? Do you really think that places like Baltimore, which spend way above average per student on education, and have an endless parade of subsidies and programs to provide resources to people in poverty ... just need to have the government do more than is already being done?

The problem is cultural. Persistent poverty in the worst parts of Appalachia, or in west Baltimore, don't exist because other people are prosperous. That entire meme is just SJW hand-wringing BS. Poorly disguised resentment of success that's trotted out to do anything to avoid addressing the cultural issues that are the actual problem in such places.

A shuttle is generally accepted to be something that runs often, doing a job over and over, back and forth, time after time - the airport shuttle, the shuttlecock (more weaving than the sport) etc etc.

So going by its intended use, this meets the naming criteria...

Then why are there more murders committed by black people (against all sorts of victims) then would be accounted for by their percentage of the population? What is your point, exactly? Yes, there are more "white" people than "black" people in the general population. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rate of crime coming out of specific demographics.

Well, sure. Because the SJWs are insisting that police do less to hunt down black guys who are responsible for the plague of murders the commit within their own demographic. Since, you know, it's racist and oppressive to attempt to arrest those guys.

So you're already attributing this to mental health problems? They guy worked for the company owned by the victim. This isn't a case where families like those of the victim (who pay the vast majority of the country's income taxes - well more than "their fair share" in terms of the income they make) somehow short-changed the guy who decided to murder them. The bad guy, in this case, decided to extort $40,000 in cash from his employer by holding the family hostage and torturing a ten year old boy until the cash was delivered by the employer's personal assistant.

Your whole "this is the fault of rich people" narrative is a bunch of SJW BS.

Do the math before you get so riled up, Mr. Coward. The numbers aren't even close to the population ratio, demographically.