dyana hunter milf co…

used honda shadow dealership subaru vancouver hertz car rental new zealand…

come to la and i’ll bury you fuckface.

AND WOODY, WHERE DID YOU GO YOU LYING PIECE OF SHEET?

“The only reason illegal immigrants are earning /hour is because A) they are illlegal, and B) they can sent money back to their home countries, where it is worth significantly more (otherwise they wouldn’t work for that pay).”

Feel free to repeat what you just said (again). I, however, believe one repetition is more than sufficient, and will provide further comments only when you actually attempt to move the dialogue forward.

Yeah, that’s why there are as many women top physiscists. Right. It’s self-evident.
NOT.
You’re just lying…

Followed by incomprehensible; what attitude isn’t helpful? Mine, trying to be honest and support job creation? Yours, lying about equality and, um, snarking a lot?

People who really care about poverty are trying to help poor people get jobs.

Like 30 really poor /hr jobs instead of 1 overpaid /hr job — where clearly the guy losing his overpaid job is worse off if he has to take a /hr job; but the WORLD is better off if 30 people are better off. Whether Chinese or Roma or Kenyans or Mexicans (in the US or Mexico).

The anti-immigrant Dem position is exactly this: stop the really really poor Mexicans from coming to the US, so that the relatively poor (but on world scale absolutely rich) US workers can make more … than they deserve. Based on using gov’t force to stop peaceful, honest peaceful from offering to work for an agreeable price. Gov’t using violence to stop peaceful social advancement of the very poor.

Such a moral disgrace — yet every rich country does it. Germany and Austria aren’t yet even willing to let Slovaks work in their rich economies in unlimited numbers, despite being in an “EU”, for the same reasons. They certainly do NOT want Slovak Roma!

And remember, the “market” doesn’t really exist, only real people who make decisions exist. Decisions made in an environemnt which states: who uses what force against who under what circumstances. Decisions of peaceful, honest agreement — or decisions based on non-peaceful force.

The “free market” means minimum force (define property rights & protect them, enforce honest contracts). Everything else is less peaceful. Nothing with less force keeps working.

Oh, the use of big gov’t to “help the poor” is also so historically stupid — the rich and powerful will ALWAYS take control of any gov’t big enough to challenge them, and use the gov’t to help themselves. The one Dem argument against Bush that has merit is that Bush is now helping the US rich too much — by letting the pork bills the Reps and Dems push in Congress go thru.

It’s not the tax breaks which are problem, it’s the gov’t pork to friends of the electeds (Rep and Dem).

That said, even with the exciting developments coming out of collaborations between the fields of psychology, cognitive science, communicative disorders, neurology, and linguistics, nary a single theoretical model of linguistic grammar proposed today omits reference to some level of Chomskyan-inspired linguistics, be it the presupposition of universal grammar (still very much unfalsified), or the existence of a critical period. The support for the latter, by the way, is never seriously proposed as rendering impossible the learning of a second language after the critical period has passed–I suspect you’re taking Chomsky’s personal anecdote too seriously, since there’s ample evidence that later language learning is indeed more difficult (I think all of us can verify this through personal experience).

Yes, you’re right about Berkeley: not very Chomskyan at all (I would hardly label Lakoff a Chomskyan), but Berkeley linguistics have (at least in the past 20 years or so) generally marched to the beat of their own quirky drummers (which is no slight: they do great work).

In sum, I’d agree with you that Chomsky is neither be-all nor end-all in the field, but who the hell is? Again, this coming from a linguist who’s decidedly un-Chomskyan (color me connectionist, if anything). I recognize that his work, analogous to Kant’s awakening from his dogmatic slumber in slamming the empricists, roused modern linguistics out of its stagnancy in superfical descriptivism and behaviorism. Perhaps it would have been someone else eventually, but Chomsky’s transformational grammar made it happen not a moment too soon.

All Chomsky said with regard to Hezbollah specifically was that the Hezbollah analysis of the security situation in Lebanon was correct — the Lebanese Army is not a significant deterrent. Is that true? I don’t know. Is it wrong just because Hezbollah flacks say it’s true? Hardly.

Chomksy then rants about how the U.S. is a terrorist country according to some of its own definitions of “terrorism”. This is inflammatory cant, of course, but given how hazy the definition tends to be, and how heinous some U.S. foreign policy has been, he’s probably right in some literal sense.

By the way, I wish people would stop praising Chomsky as the world’s greatest linguist, as the definer of modern linguistics, etc., whenever they have to reach for something good to say about him (“for balance”) before distorting his positions. (Or, on the other side, when they need to further burnish his intellectual credentials before going on to parrot his politics.)

Chomsky himself has correctly characterized his brand of linguistics as representing a minority opinion in the field. (A largish minority, but he’s right: most linguists are not Chomskians.) When I worked in the linguistics department at U.C. Berkeley, I think there might have been only ONE Chomskian on the faculty. (George Lakoff, as it happened.)

Chomksy is a mathematician who got interested in the grammar of human languages after studying the grammar of formal (mathematical) languages. Having studied both, I’d say this is kind of like declaring yourself a botanist after getting very good at making artificial flowers. It seems to me (and to linguists outside his fold) that he has been writing the same book about grammar for several decades — the covers and titles change, but they are little more than editions of the same book. He has never learned to speak another language, believing (in line with his own theories about the Critical Period Hypothesis) that he is incapable of learning a foreign language because he is now post-pubescent (though some may beg to differ on that point) That’s a position I find flatly bizarre, considering the number of people I know personally who learned to speak foreign languages fluently as adults. Considering that he is a major critic of the Cold War, it’s ironic that he vaulted to prominence in linguistics by using his mathematical grammar background to supply technical expertise to machine translation projects in the 50s for converting Russian intelligence into English (failed projects, of course.)

Chomsky is an interesting and influential linguist, but he is not the be-all and end-all of the field. The world’s greatest intellectual? Um, no, sorry. Very smart guy, certainly, and until he got monotonous on the subject of U.S. foreign policies (around the late 80s I think) a very perceptive critic of those policies. Sometimes I think he’d be taken more seriously even by his opponents if he weren’t such an icon for so many on the Left. Much of what he has written deserves to be taken seriously, after all.

as for the stat issue, moron, obviously stats on alabama’s jobs situaiton will tell us nothing about the situation for the entire united states. the stat i cite is a national one. it comes from one of your republican leading lights, paul craig roberts, a phd economist from stanford, berkeley, etc, who was a former reagan treasury secretary. i had posted the article it came from above. but i guess that you are also either senile, or maybe just slow. in any case, i assume someone with robert’s credentials can marshall up a solid source for his statement. here is a link to the article, which again was pasted in full above in an earlier posting from me, its called “Life in the Bush Economy: Fat, Drunk and Broke.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12977.htm

Paul Craig Roberts’s bio there says:

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Roberts also has a lot of other good stuff on the Bush-whacked economy. Here are a few more of his greatest hits:

Liberty, you should check this one, about comparative advantage, its called “Second Thoughts about Free Trade.”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/globecon/schumer.htm

But there is also:
Nuking the Economy
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02112006.html
Bush’s Jobless Economy
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts377.html
Bush’s Con Job
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16867

Lots more, he is quite the prolific writer on the Bush economic disaster. Check him out in google for more.

I think it makes look more like an idiot than otherwise, so that’s just a personal opinion in a land of public opinion. Don’t notify Webster’s or Oxford just yet.

All Chomsky said with regard to Hezbollah specifically was that the Hezbollah analysis of the security situation in Lebanon was correct — the Lebanese Army is not a significant deterrent. Is that true? I don’t know. Is it wrong just because Hezbollah flacks say it’s true? Hardly.

Chomksy then rants about how the U.S. is a terrorist country according to some of its own definitions of “terrorism”. This is inflammatory cant, of course, but given how hazy the definition tends to be, and how heinous some U.S. foreign policy has been, he’s probably right in some literal sense.

By the way, I wish people would stop praising Chomsky as the world’s greatest linguist, as the definer of modern linguistics, etc., whenever they have to reach for something good to say about him (“for balance”) before distorting his positions. (Or, on the other side, when they need to further burnish his intellectual credentials before going on to parrot his politics.)

Chomsky himself has correctly characterized his brand of linguistics as representing a minority opinion in the field. (A largish minority, but he’s right: most linguists are not Chomskians.) When I worked in the linguistics department at U.C. Berkeley, I think there might have been only ONE Chomskian on the faculty. (George Lakoff, as it happened.)

Chomksy is a mathematician who got interested in the grammar of human languages after studying the grammar of formal (mathematical) languages. Having studied both, I’d say this is kind of like declaring yourself a botanist after getting very good at making artificial flowers. It seems to me (and to linguists outside his fold) that he has been writing the same book about grammar for several decades — the covers and titles change, but they are little more than editions of the same book. He has never learned to speak another language, believing (in line with his own theories about the Critical Period Hypothesis) that he is incapable of learning a foreign language because he is now post-pubescent (though some may beg to differ on that point) That’s a position I find flatly bizarre, considering the number of people I know personally who learned to speak foreign languages fluently as adults. Considering that he is a major critic of the Cold War, it’s ironic that he vaulted to prominence in linguistics by using his mathematical grammar background to supply technical expertise to machine translation projects in the 50s for converting Russian intelligence into English (failed projects, of course.)

Chomsky is an interesting and influential linguist, but he is not the be-all and end-all of the field. The world’s greatest intellectual? Um, no, sorry. Very smart guy, certainly, and until he got monotonous on the subject of U.S. foreign policies (around the late 80s I think) a very perceptive critic of those policies. Sometimes I think he’d be taken more seriously even by his opponents if he weren’t such an icon for so many on the Left. Much of what he has written deserves to be taken seriously, after all.