|
ultimateforce posted:I browse quite a few car forums and tonight I am looking at higher-end sports car forums. For those unaware, car forums are at a base line right wing, but the more expensive the car.. Oh boy, hold on to your hats folks! Good god. Sounds exactly like the idiots on rx7club.com
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 07:33
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Made a thing Here's another version, probably less accurate 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
constantIllusion posted:That thread is so precious. Someone whose household income is $250K seriously said he and his wife would work less to avoid paying more taxes. He clearly doesn't know that $250K is taxable income, meaning after all deductions are taken. Real income for $250K taxable can be at least $300K, since people who really make that income have easy access to CPAs that will inform them of all the deductions and credits they're entitled to by law. It must be fun to get on the internet and blatantly lie about how much money you make. $250k/year is a huge amount of money no matter where you live. You could be living in Manhattan, one of the most expensive places in the country, have a very high standard of living, and still have tons of money left over. Some people are just loving stupid about money, which is how you can distinguish people who will be wealthy for a few years versus those who will be wealthy for decades, if not generations. The former spend lots of money on fancy cars, extravagant vacations, homes that are too large for them, social events that are about status, etc., while the latter lives well, but modestly, and invests their money so it works for them. Once you get to extreme levels of wealth (like the Romneys) you start to see more extravagant spending, but people who make hundreds of thousands to low millions a year and want to stay that way know that spending large amounts of money is the fastest way to lose everything they have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
evilbastard posted:Here's another version, probably less accurate If not for Pennsylvania (a historical piece of New England and traditionally a liberal, union stronghold (excluding "The T" aka Pennsyltucky)) being covered in Chik-Fil-A locations this would be a really convincing animated (I'm going to make up a new term here) Infogif. It's still obviously relevant, but I can see the first piece of criticism stemming from PA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
I can't think of a single "small business" owner who pulls $250K a year out of it as personal income. I guess maybe an independently practicing attorney who specializes in some seriously high-profile cases? Possibly a funeral home operator? Maybe a dentist or family practitioner? Seriously, if you patronize a: -greasy-spoon diner -florist -seamstress -baker -antique shop -upholsterer -local maid service -landscaper (staffed by legal residents obviously, we're running for office for pete's sake) -arts/crafts store -family photographer -day care center -piano/music teacher/math tutor for your kid -mechanic -painter etc How many of those people do you think are actually claiming $250,000 a YEAR in personal income from those businesses after deductions? That after all their expenses and deductions, they tell the IRS that they made $250,000 in a year?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Only 400 posts to go and I'll have read the whole thread! Woo! I'm finding myself in a facebook (I know) discussion with an old friend about Chick-fil-a. We both live overseas; I'm Canadian and she's American. Her viewpoint (and those talking with her) can be summed up as: "If the CEO of Chik-fil-A wants to hate, let him hate. As a private citizen, it's his right to do so. The most effective protest of a business is to boycott that business." To which I replied: "Chik-fil-A literally donates money to anti-gay groups that have been described as "hate groups"." which I backed up with a link. She responded with, "as a private citizen that's his right. Being against homosexuality isn't a crime. All of the open protests at these restaurants makes it seem like 1st Amendment suppression. I'm all for speaking out against bigotry, but calling for personal freedom while trying to supress that of the opposition is wrong." Under Canadian law I'm pretty sure it is a crime to spread hate, but I know that free speech seems to trump all in America. What irks me is "being against homosexuality isn't a crime" and the use of corporate finances to happily oppress people is A-OK. What kind of counter-argument can I use for this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Only 400 posts to go and I'll have read the whole thread! Woo! Hey what's up, if you were literally advocating the suppression of free speech, even hateful speech, then you are in the wrong. However, many people, in a scrabble to defend the indefensible, have cast legitimate problems people have with Chik-fil-a's bigotry as the suppression of free speech. If the latter is what's going on here, then you need to call that poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:I can't think of a single "small business" owner who pulls $250K a year out of it as personal income. I guess maybe an independently practicing attorney who specializes in some seriously high-profile cases? Possibly a funeral home operator? Maybe a dentist or family practitioner? Never underestimate the ability of people to operate in a country that will do just about anything to appease business and not follow the operating practices that give them tons of advantages. You would also think this would flip some switch about how screwed up things are for regular individuals but this never seems to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Good god. Sounds exactly like the idiots on rx7club.com Which is great because you hardly have to be in the 1% to own an RX7. I bought a running FC for $200 once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Only 400 posts to go and I'll have read the whole thread! Woo! Is she saying that protesting someone's restaurant is against the first amendment? Or is she saying that, by protesting, people are wrongly acting as though Cathy's bigoted opinions are against the First Amendment? Or is it something else? If it's the first one,  If it's the second one, that's also ridiculous but unfortunately in America there really does seem to be this widestanding notion that expressing a (bigoted, offensive) viewpoint in the first place is "free speech," but criticizing this opinion is somehow "censorship." arachnobot fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Aug 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Hey what's up, if you were literally advocating the suppression of free speech, even hateful speech, then you are in the wrong. However, many people, in a scrabble to defend the indefensible, have cast legitimate problems people have with Chik-fil-a's bigotry as the suppression of free speech. If the latter is what's going on here, then you need to call that poo poo out. I'm Canadian; we have limits on our free speech laws (as we politely told Ann Coulter when she came up to speak at the University of Ottawa) when it comes to hateful diatribe. I'm not attempting to frame this American discussion under Canadian laws, though. Anyway, I responded to her by paraphrasing Arachnobot, saying "If Cathy is free to express a bigoted opinion under the 1st Amendment, then everyone also has the right to criticise him through protest under the same amendment. It's not the suppression of the 1st Amendment, but the exercise of it." to which she replied: "Criticize, yes. Crowding the restaurants telling people they're bigots for eating there, no. Of course that's not everyone protesting, but a good chunk." which I'm tempted to agree with (for the first part). Surely it is the owner who should be criticised and not the consumer, where a protest outside is permissible but it should stay outside the establishment? Or, if you are a customer who eats there with full knowledge that your money is directly going to fund anti-gay groups, you are a bigot and deserve to be criticised in the middle of your meal? For the second part, I can always ask "exactly what percentage of protesters are doing the behaviour you described".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Hey what's up, if you were literally advocating the suppression of free speech, even hateful speech, then you are in the wrong. That's a statement of values there boss, not a statement of objective fact. I'm perfectly fine with hate speech laws and that's not something that's objectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:That's a statement of values there boss, not a statement of objective fact. I'm perfectly fine with hate speech laws and that's not something that's objectively wrong. I'm all for a law vs. morals argument, but let's make sure everyone is on the same page here: hate speech laws in the U.S. are considered unconstitutional and hate speech is a protected right under the First Amendment. You might not like hate speech, but that doesn't make it legal for the government to ban businesses that engage in hate speech from opening up shop in a given state or city. Now whether or not you think that's the way the law should be is a matter we can all discuss. I think it should be that way because I don't agree with the idea of letting the government decide what businesses to allow based on their political or cultural stances. I don't agree with Chick-Fil-A's CEO on restricting marriage, but I don't think their business should be barred from doing business because I don't want to see the opposite happen either. I don't want Jan Brewer deciding that Amazon can't do business in Nevada because their CEO donated $2.5 million in support of gay marriage. The solution to horrific, noxious and hateful views isn't suppressing them, it's rebutting them. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Aug 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I don't want Jan Brewer deciding that Amazon can't do business in Nevada because their CEO donated $2.5 million in support of gay marriage. Why would the Governor of Arizona have jurisdiction over Nevada?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:Which is great because you hardly have to be in the 1% to own an RX7. I bought a running FC for $200 once. To own an RX-7? Nah. To keep one running? It helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I'm all for a law vs. morals argument, but let's make sure everyone is on the same page here: hate speech laws in the U.S. are considered unconstitutional and hate speech is a protected right under the First Amendment. You might not like hate speech, but that doesn't make it legal for the government to ban businesses that engage in hate speech from opening up shop in a given state or city. Except the poster I was replying to was replying to a Canadian, not an American. He was also clearly attempting to make an objective moral statement (It's wrong) as opposed to a legal one (It's unconstitutional).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Why would the Governor of Arizona have jurisdiction over Nevada? Because I can't type the state I'm thinking of.  Poizen Jam posted:Except the poster I was replying to was replying to a Canadian, not an American. He was also clearly attempting to make an objective moral statement (It's wrong) as opposed to a legal one (It's unconstitutional). And that Canadian was discussing a situation of dispute in America. The poster was asking for a specific argument about the Chick-Fil-A example, which means U.S. law is what they're going to have to follow in any counterargument with respect to what is allowable legally. I'll let 30.5 Days handle defending his own posts, but I think you're making things more difficult than they were meant. Either he's saying the poster is constitutionally in the wrong or he's saying he thinks the posters view is wrong; the former is a fact and the latter is obviously subjective, so I don't see why you're attaching "objective" to his statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I'm all for a law vs. morals argument, but let's make sure everyone is on the same page here: hate speech laws in the U.S. are considered unconstitutional and hate speech is a protected right under the First Amendment. You might not like hate speech, but that doesn't make it legal for the government to ban businesses that engage in hate speech from opening up shop in a given state or city. The problem here is you're mixing up two separate things, which is the same problem most of the pro-Chick-Fil-A types are having. Saying you can't operate a business in this Town/City/County/State/Country because of what the business does is perfectly legal. Blocking an individual's speech is not. The KKK is protected by the First Amendment, they have marches from time to time, they're perfectly legal. And you are correct that the proper way to respond to them is through rebuttal, not through squashing speech. However, even if Boston or Chicago banned Chick-Fil-A, Cathy's right to speech is in no way being squashed. He can still travel to those cities, speak out on how God will destroy us for not backing "traditional" marriage, print and distribute anti-gay literature, and lobby to make gay marriage illegal in those States. The government, at every level, has the power to regulate what businesses operate within their jurisdiction. They can't stop a known member of the KKK from operating a business simply because he's known to be a member of the KKK. But they can ban his business if it has policies and practices they don't want. Hell, there are laws banning businesses from have discriminatory practices towards race and gender. The owner can believe whatever he wants, do whatever he wants; but the business can't. Also, the example of Amazon's CEO is a bad one; that's $2.5M donated out of his own pockets. That actually is personal speech. Millions donated by Chick-Fil-A the company does not constitute Dan Cathy's personal speech. In any case, if Brewer wanted to block Amazon from operating within Arizona, there's no reason the State Government couldn't say they aren't welcome in Arizona. Just like the LA City Council could block Walmart from opening in parts of LA if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
dur posted:To own an RX-7? Nah. To keep one running? It helps. You can keep a rotary running forever with no money, just not at optimal output.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
I've been doing some reading about attitudes towards homosexuality in the new testament. Maybe this is well known to others and just news to me, but while Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex practices, he was pretty loving clear about divorce and remarriageMark 10:1-12 posted:Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. This is pretty good to know if you find yourself in an argument with a "because the bible tells me so" bigot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Craftics posted:This one just popped up on my feed. My eyes, trained as they are to this kind of crap, immediately began to roll, but then I read the whole thing and was kind of pleasantly surprised. As someone else pointed out, some of these quotes are suspect. 3/4 are out of context/fake, the last is mostly accurate. While it is true that our founding fathers were not much like today's Christians, we shouldn't use fake/out of context quotes to promote that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 19:17
|
|
(She might have to, gasp, get a job!)
|
person on facebook posted:I DON'T USUALLY POST THINGS LIKE THIS, BUT THIS ONE IS RIGHT ON! dun dun dunnnnn
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Sarion posted:The problem here is you're mixing up two separate things, which is the same problem most of the pro-Chick-Fil-A types are having. Saying you can't operate a business in this Town/City/County/State/Country because of what the business does is perfectly legal. Blocking an individual's speech is not. The KKK is protected by the First Amendment, they have marches from time to time, they're perfectly legal. And you are correct that the proper way to respond to them is through rebuttal, not through squashing speech. You're conflating discriminatory practices with political advocacy, the two are separate issues. If Chick-Fil-A is engaging in discriminatory workplace practices they absolutely should be held to account for that by the government. If Chick-Fil-A is donating to a cause you disagree with, that's protected under the First Amendment. You may not agree that it should be protected, but it currently is, and government officials can't bar businesses entry based on political speech or money spent on political causes. quote:Also, the example of Amazon's CEO is a bad one; that's $2.5M donated out of his own pockets. That actually is personal speech. Millions donated by Chick-Fil-A the company does not constitute Dan Cathy's personal speech. In any case, if Brewer wanted to block Amazon from operating within Arizona, there's no reason the State Government couldn't say they aren't welcome in Arizona. Just like the LA City Council could block Walmart from opening in parts of LA if they wanted to. Millions donated by Chick-Fil-A constitutes the company's free speech under the first amendment, and thus government cannot legally ban them from setting up shop or doing business for that reason. The example you linked doesn't seem to mention anything to do with political causes Wal-Mart is involved in. To clarify as an example: Government can legally bar all stores that get merchandise from sweatshops. Government cannot legally bar all stores that donate funds to Planned Parenthood. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Aug 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Chick-fil-a does not allow gay couples to open franchises. Pretty sure that would qualify as reason enough. Of course since no city has actually banned them, only a few mayors have come out to say that they would not be welcome, it doesn't really matter. But you are correct that their corporate donations are technically protected by Citizen's United. Not really a strong point to argue from, since I would have no problem squashing "corporate free speech". But correct all the same. Augster posted:
Ignoring for now the fact that vet care for pets is very different than healthcare for people. And the fact that the description of "seniors under obamacare" is completely wrong; the most interesting part to me is the whole "care only for people who are productive" part. Its not anything new, its really just a rewording of DEATH PANELS. But its fascinating because they're employing the underlying philosophy of UHC in order to oppose it. They are arguing in favor of the idea that all people, not just "productive" people are deserving of care. And not just life or death care; but hip surgery, a quality of life procedure. This, coming from the group whose actual healthcare philosophy is "only people who make enough money deserve healthcare, and I refuse to help care for all the lazy losers who can't". If they got their way, the would literally turn Medicare into a "death panel". Only seniors who are wealthy enough to afford care would get care. Its almost as if they know their own view is repugnant, so they falsely apply it to their opponents. "VOTE FOR US - We will stop them from doing what WE want to do."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Is 'community standards' still a rule in America? Can't cities in the USA decide to ban alcohol, strip clubs, gambling, discotechs and so on? If so, I don't see why they can't ban other establishments they feel conflict with the values of the city in question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:I'm Canadian; we have limits on our free speech laws (as we politely told Ann Coulter when she came up to speak at the University of Ottawa) when it comes to hateful diatribe. I'm not attempting to frame this American discussion under Canadian laws, though. I meant to respond to this sooner, but forgot. I would just point out that most of the people protesting Chick-fil-a are protesting silently via boycott. A small percentage of them actually show up to protest the individual stores. And only a percentage of those are going inside to yell at customers or employees. There were counter protesters on Wednesday telling employees, some of whom are gay, how great it is that they work for a company that hates <insert slurs> as much as they do. And then the same gay employees were being called bigots by the other side. Ultimately, when you have a bunch of people, some portion of them are going to be very vocal assholes. Neither side should feel the need to defend their actions, they are just assholes, and their existence in no way invalidates the points being made by either side. As for people who continue to eat there, I think you have several groups: 1) Outright bigots who support CFA for being bigots. 2) People who are bigoted but are ashamed of it and want to cloak themselves in "fighting for free speech" but would never have the balls to show up to a KKK rally just to support their free speech. 3) People who just don't care. They don't pay much attention to the news, maybe heard something about Cathy saying something anti-gay, maybe not, but even if they did they just don't care any which way. 4) People who claim to care, and know what's going on, but don't feel like this is really the place to take a stand because they don't see their own contribution as being significant. Or maybe they agree with the idea of equal rights enough to vote for it, but aren't particularly passionate about it. So, no, I don't think you can blanket all customers as "must be bigots". Personally, I would like to think most of their customers fall under #3, or they will in the years to come as interest in the company wanes. But that may be due to my own bias that most Americans are woefully ill informed about what is going on around them, and based on no factual information what so ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
zero alpha posted:Is 'community standards' still a rule in America? Can't cities in the USA decide to ban alcohol, strip clubs, gambling, discotechs and so on? If so, I don't see why they can't ban other establishments they feel conflict with the values of the city in question. Yes, this is true. Except that Citizen's United has made things really weird in that corporations have the same rights to free speech as people. So while discriminatory hiring is not protected free speech, donating to ideological groups is. Its the whole idea behind Super PACs really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Augster posted:dun dun dunnnnn Two patients limp into two different medical offices with the same complaint. Both have painful trouble walking and appear to require hip surgery. The FIRST sees his family doctor and is scheduled to visit a specialist in 2 weeks, then gets an x-ray, which confirms the need for surgery. The specialist advises the patient on whether a hip replacement or hip repair would be best based on the patient's age and general health. An appropriate surgery is scheduled for the next available spot in several weeks. The SECOND patient is turned away and refused treatment. The patient lives in constant pain with only over the counter medication for relief. The patient dies several months later due to overuse of Tylenol causing liver failure. Why the different treatment for the two patients? The FIRST lives in a first world country. The SECOND lives in the USA and couldn't afford private insurance... If you think tax dollars should go to killing civilians overseas instead of saving the lives of American citizens, vote Republican.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Thanks Sarion and others. I was unaware that Citizens United applied to this case as well and that hate speech laws were unconstitutional. Don't worry, though, there's plenty of apathy to go around!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
quote:pending the review boards decision based on his age and remaining value to society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Why is this still around
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
According to the survey the Kaiser Family Foundation did for their PPACA quiz, 73% of the country still thinks the Public Option exists, and 55% still think Death Panels are in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
I went to dinner with some friends tonight and one of the girls said she doesn't follow the news or politics or anything, but that the people she works with do and they told her that people will have to get approval for surgery and stuff like that under Obamacare. And that all of the people in the office were against it (shockingly). It's depressing. e: The truth is what? That they will have a panel that makes recommendations on how to save money or something? Obviously not that a panel will decide whether grandpa gets to have a liver transplant or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I went to dinner with some friends tonight and one of the girls said she doesn't follow the news or politics or anything, but that the people she works with do and they told her that people will have to get approval for surgery and stuff like that under Obamacare. And that all of the people in the office were against it (shockingly). What happens is that the government (HHS) will regulate what plans offered in the healthcare exchange must cover, what their co-pay and coinsurance rates can be, etc. For plans not involved in the exchange, there are just a few new rules that also benefit consumers, like prohibitions on lifetime maximum coverage and exclusions for preexisting conditions. For Medicare the changes are a bit different, the most important change being that doctors will have to cover the same procedures, tests, etc. that they previously did but they will now be receiving lower reimbursement rates, which is likely to piss off a lot of physicians, hospitals, and other providers. There aren't any provisions for per treatment/procedure approval, and as far as I know there aren't actually similar ones in other nations with UHC. What gets twisted into looking like "death panels" is that the NHS and similar government panels assess the costs, benefits, and dangers of particular medical interventions and determine whether they are viable for coverage under their national healthcare programs, e.g. they might not cover a new breast cancer treatment if it only has a 5% chance of increasing the five-year survival rate and costs a million of dollars per patient. This doesn't mean it's banned, just that the treatment may not be covered by the government because costs are astronomically out of proportion to the potential benefits. More importantly, this isn't a case-by-case review like "death panels" proponents like to imply, it's just general policy-setting by government experts. Edit: And if you really want to shoot down this bullshit, point out how these kinds of "death panels" actually already exist in the US through private insurers. Each private healthcare insurance company has its own recission department that does case-by-case reviews for coverage submission from patients and their entire purpose is to look for any and all reasons to deny coverage, generally by either claiming that the illness needing treatment was a preexisting condition and is therefore not covered OR they have their staff physician shills claiming that the procedure actually isn't needed and some other, cheaper treatment is all they will cover even if patients have multiple physicians testifying to the necessity of the more expensive treatment. This is the kind of bullshit that will actually be at least partially fixed by the PPACA by restricting the ability of insurance companies to deny treatment based on preexisting conditions, but the issue is that to make that regulation financially viable, we need something like the individual mandate (or, even better, single payer) so there's a larger pool of resources to draw upon. Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Aug 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Why is this still around Because it's so much worse than quote:pending the computer decision based on his bank account balance and credit score.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
These people would have their mind blown by my grandfather who got a new hip at almost 80, and had cataract surgery on both eyes a few years after that. In communist nightmare socialist-land Norway 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
Panne posted:These people would have their mind blown by my grandfather who got a new hip at almost 80, and had cataract surgery on both eyes a few years after that. In communist nightmare socialist-land Norway Just another petrol-shiekdom with overpaid royalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I went to dinner with some friends tonight and one of the girls said she doesn't follow the news or politics or anything, but that the people she works with do and they told her that people will have to get approval for surgery and stuff like that under Obamacare. And that all of the people in the office were against it (shockingly). It is true. Its called pre-authorization and its required by her private health insurance company. I would post more but I am on my phone. Her worries are silly because the only approval people will have to get under Obamacare is the exact same approval they have to get now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Cross post because I'm not quite sure what this is. It's a PDF from http://www.paconsulting.com/ and it seems to be doing the rounds at the moment. It's very simplified and contains an awful lot of picking and choosing. http://paconsulting.com/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=23946
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
willie_dee posted:Cross post because I'm not quite sure what this is. Don't know who PA consulting is, but they are terrible. Don't have time to really dig into it, but here are two things I immediately noticed. Page 15 - Graph that supposedly supports the claim that steel production is "disappearing" to the East. All it really shows is that steel is a growth industry in China. According to their own chart, American and European steel production in 2011 is effectively the same as it was in 1990. Hardly qualifies as "disappearing" if it remains exactly the same across two decades. Page 28 - Two graphs showing the number of Chinese students who study abroad, and the number that return home is nearly 100%... oh wait, they changed the y-axis on the two graphs. In reality about 33% returned to China in 2011, only barely changed from a decade ago when it was about 25%. The only thing that has actually changed in a significant way is the number of Chinese students studying abroad. The thing is, they clearly know how to graph two data sets on one graph. They do it all the time in there. But if they had done that it wouldn't have given the false impression that the two bar graphs were close to the same height.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 12:06
|
|