LPoulin133 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, spelling. > > If you’re referring to his use of ‘your’ instead > of ‘you’re’ then I think that’s a grammar mistake > because technically ‘your’ is not misspelled, just > used incorrectly. Depends. If in his mind he was thinking “your missing” as in “that’s your missing, this is my missing” then it is a grammar error. But if he was think “your missing” as in “you are missing” then it’s a spelling error.
In either case, it’s a grammatical error not a spelling error. A spelling error is where a word is actually spelled incorrectly, hence the term spelling error. There were no spelling errors in that sentence. http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that-make-you-look-dumb/
The House just approved adding another $2 BN to the program: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOl2wZnAd6SI
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In either case, it’s a grammatical error not a > spelling error. A spelling error is where a word > is actually spelled incorrectly, hence the term > spelling error. There were no spelling errors in > that sentence. > > http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that- > make-you-look-dumb/ What if someone wrote “suck my dyke” would you consider that a grammatical error too since “dyke” is a correctly spelled word?
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What if someone wrote “suck my dyke” would you > consider that a grammatical error too since “dyke” > is a correctly spelled word? no. i would call it an interjection fragment. (consider revising)
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheAliMan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In either case, it’s a grammatical error not a > > spelling error. A spelling error is where a > word > > is actually spelled incorrectly, hence the term > > spelling error. There were no spelling errors > in > > that sentence. > > > > > http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that- > > > make-you-look-dumb/ > > > What if someone wrote “suck my dyke” would you > consider that a grammatical error too since “dyke” > is a correctly spelled word? wtf I can’t believe d-y-k-e is censored, that’s a slap in the face of Dutch people.
yeah, i love how when you quote a message, it shows you the actual word. for example quote this. shitty.
cock balls shit fuck pussy tits fucker face nuts bitch
ValueAddict Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bernie_m Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program > is > > wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto > > sales in less than a week. > > > > Cue right wing outrage that government screwed > up > > again. Facts are irrelevant. > > I think your missing the point here… > > wildly successful? “stimuation” is nil > > The government again lacked any foresight on how > to run this operation efficiently in order to > achieve their goal. It broke in less than a week. > Hooray nincompoops. Hooray red tape. What could possibly be more effective/efficient than a week? Would you have preferred to see this program go on for 10 years?
Yeah, what a great program, not only have tax payers indirectly given autodealers $3bln more dollars, but now people are taking on more debt, just cause they will save $4,500 on a new car, when their old car may have worked just fine. They are incentivizing you to spend when more should be saving. Wont an unitended consequence of this be that for those who cannot afford to take on more debt to buy a new car, but instead are looking in the secondary market for a used car, end up having to pay a higher price because the supply of older working cars has now decreased because they are being traded in and crushed. .
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cock balls shit fuck pussy tits fucker face nuts > bitch you must be new at this…try using CAPS
So I’m taking it based on the comments that none of you actually know anything about how the program works, what went wrong, and how they fixed it?
So the cash for clunkers program was a failure right? “Auto Manufacturers industry news provided by Financial News USA. DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co’s (NYSE: F) U.S. sales chief said on Thursday that the pace of auto sales has picked up “dramatically” since the launch of a cash for clunkers program.” http://www.financialnewsusa.com/news/ford-sales-up-dramatically
Edmunds.com noted recently that over 100,000 buyers put their purchases on hold waiting for the program to launch. Once consumers could start cashing in on July 24, showrooms were flooded and government servers were overwhelmed as the backlog of buyers finalized their purchases. Secondly, on July 27, Edmunds.com published an analysis showing that in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 “clunker-like” deals happen with no government program in place. The 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund through the program’s Nov. 1 end date were about the “natural” clunker trade-in rate. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324350084909302.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
Geesh – If the democrats said the sky was blue the WSJ would publish an opinion piece saying that it wasn’t.
Q: Is the forceful extraction of capital from productive individuals by the government to pay above fair market value for used cars morally right? A: No.
pu239 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Q: Is the forceful extraction of capital from > productive individuals by the government to pay > above fair market value for used cars morally > right? > > A: No. Morally right? I have enough problem with people using the word “fair” (because fair means something different to everyone), but who exactly made you the arbiter of “morally right”? Does not the good book say “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”?
“Render unto Caesar” so that others may sell their used cars at a price above fair market value? You have got to be kidding. You must think my entire paycheck is Caesar’s. Taking money from me, that I earned, that I can best decide how to spend and to provide for my family, to pay for junk cars is immoral. End of story. If you think it’s your moral obligation to ensure that everyone can get rid of their junk cars at inflated prices then knock yourself out and start a charity or other organization to provide such a service.
the brilliance of this program is blinding. frederic bastiat must’ve rolled over in his grave