So, if you don't stop you'll go double blind?

That's worse than I thought.

In academics: 43.9% of statistic are made up.
In business: 72.3%, although banks were slightly higher than average.
In politics: 99.991%, although it's possible the .009% were a sampling error.

Now if I could just make this a pretty graph.

I do run a business, but I don't do accounting. I hire accountants because I know things are complex--and I have been audited.

But I do know the law. If you talked to those in jail, or read through their cases, you would find they are materially different that what Daschle did.

I'm not making up Civil vs. Criminal law. Or, to quote on source "the difference between tax law and the IRS rules and regulations, the monetary and non-monetary penalties imposed for understatements of tax liability, and finally provide a means for preventing and defending understatements of tax liability"

Daschle violated rules and regulations. If hadn't paid, he would have violated the law. If he'd lied about having the car and driver, he would have violated the law. If he made a math error, its rules and regulations and a chance to pay.

For an example go here:
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/tax/manuals/law/law_ch5_0.html#5.2.1.1

Notice that there are several monitary penalties for violations, as well as a few that are misdemeanors. The financial penalties are civil matters, the others criminal.

Or Silly String.

I think the problem is that it is so complicated it predicts everything that can or could happen. So the math is interesting to apply after the fact--but you can't extract the real from the possible results through the math alone.

Having to many points is the same as having none at all. And that's what String Theory in its current form seems to be.

Odd, if I keep it to one point; you argue the bigger picture. If I argue bigger picture, you switch to one point.

But ignoring the larger points, I said:

          If I said, "I didn't eat lunch," would you assume that meant I skipped desert, or that I
          hadn't eaten anything at all for lunch?

You said "Daschle didn't pay taxes," I pointed out all the taxes he did pay to show that phrase was untrue.

If I say, "You didn't sleep with women," and you say "I'm married with three kids" I can't back and claim I never said you didn't have sex with any women, just not all women.

I'm sorry you have trouble writing what you mean to say.

And I am home. And I'm kind of having fun.

Malkin is a hyper-partisan, extremely fact-challenged source. Using her as a source tends to discredit the argument, especially the argument that you are really a liberal. It's like claiming you are a capitalist, then quoting Marx's arguments while supporting state ownership. It tends to undermine the claim.

His point is clear, but not well thought out. Or, at least, the example that he gives are extremely biased and don't prove what he thinks they prove. Comparing people that withdraw from nomination to people who resign in disgrace is disingenuous; and some were only rumored to be in consideration. Also, saying that if someone may have suspicious practices (according to a blog) is the same as a criminal and should be kept from government doesn't seem to hold water.

And the fact that he still hold grudges against a president three terms out of office, and holds onto discredited Whitewater theories and mafia links to the Clintons, again seems to indicate a desire to attack Obama, not bring balance to the coverage.

And, in this post, the conflation of Civil and Criminal offenses is either mistaken or dishonestly undertaken. Being guilty of poor judgement does not make one a criminal.

I didn't add a word, you are somehow expecting your reader to add the word "all" or "some" to the quote "Daschle didn't pay taxes."

If I said, "I didn't eat lunch," would you assume that meant I skipped desert, or that I hadn't eaten anything at all for lunch?

You kept saying you dealt in facts, yet you said people resigned who never had jobs; and in Gupta case were never even nominated. You used phrases like "didn't pay taxes" because you know it made it sound worse than it actually did.

And when I quote you, you say I need to argue with what you actually said. To remind you, you said "Please enlighten me how the parent list is untrue in any facet."

I chose Daschle example because it seemed easy. I could just as easily attacked the "potentially-suspicious" quote. As if having a partisan blogger attack you was reason you should be kept from government. Or Whitewater, or any number of other aspersions masquerading as facts.

Whatever your politics, you argue like a right winger. You assume your opinions are facts, that google-searches and anecdotes are the same as research and that any challenging of your ideas is a dishonest attack.

We face so many problems economically, socially, and politically that I find it odd that even Slashdotters respond to this so passionately. You regret you Obama vote because of this?

I mean, the RIAA is ripping off both artists and consumers, yes. But I'd dare say they are doing less damage than our opponents in Afghanistan, or the bankers blackmailing the government for money to cover their own bad bets.

Even when it comes to tech issues, it seems like infrastructure and access and a host of other issues are more important than the RIAAs bad behavior. Would you really just vote for anyone that doesn't hate the RIAA, despite any other issues?

Shouldn't we wait and see what these lawyers do in the administration?

I guess this community is what it is, but there sure seems to be an odd and misplaced anger over this.

I'm not turning away, as far as I know. If these lawyers do evil, I'll complain, but I don't see how hiring people who's firm worked for the RIAA automatically means Obama has done "Crap."

And I don't think he can fix the economy, shut down Guantanamo, win the war on terror, and buy me a pony in only three months. So far he seems to be working hard on everything but the Pony.