You mean the same way that many of these same people told us in the early 70s that the "science was settled" that if population growth wasn't stopped there would be massive increases in starvation throughout the world by the year 2000?
Wow, you started out sounding like an AGW proponent. Then you said this:
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.
and I began to think maybe you weren't, since the AGW proponents are the one's who seem to be seeking a political "solution" to the "problem" they believe exists, rather than just telling people the facts and letting them decide what action to take.
Considering that the AMA only represents a small fraction of actual practicing doctors, who cares? Of course, considering that one of the reasons that the AMA represents so few doctors is because they have often sold their support for certain programs even though most doctors actually opposed said programs, whether or not they support this one will be a question of whether or not there is money in it for the AMA (not the doctors who are members of the AMA, but just the AMA itself...and its executives).
My objection is to the fact that they took away a perfectly valid choice so that Philips and other manufacturers could get a higher profit on their new light bulbs. I have no problem whatsoever with Philips selling these light bulbs (well, except for the $60 one that they got several million government dollars to develop...with the condition being that it retail for less than $20). I have a problem with Congress passing a law making it illegal for someone to sell a dirt cheap light bulb that they can still make a profit on.
A couple of points. First, you are correct that Philips can sell bulbs at whatever price the market is prepared to buy them at. However, by eliminating the types of bulbs that can be the most cheaply manufactured, the law raised the lowest price that people can sell bulbs for. Thus giving the market a choice of either not buying bulbs or paying more for them. Second, the law was not "designed to reduce energy consumption", that is merely the argument they made to sell a law designed to increase the price of light bulbs. Even if it was designed to reduce energy consumption, it will not accomplish this task as studies have shown that as devices become more energy efficient, people use them more.
Finally, you would have to list a specific law designed to "protect the environment from pollution" in order for me to say whether or not I am unhappy about it. I am unhappy about seat belt laws as it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to buy a car with seat belts or not (let alone whether or not I wear them). It should be up to me as to whether the added safety of seat belts is worth the added cost.
No, interracial marriage was never like having dry water. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. When inter-racial marriage was considered wrong it was considered "polluting the blood" or some such, no one argued that it was a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals have always had the same marriage rights as anyone else, they just were not interested in exercising them. Creating "homosexual marriages" makes the word marriage have no meaning.
Well, you are correct that they have a big interest in student loans. However, it is not the one you listed. Their interest in keeping the student loans coming is so that they can continue to spend money in ever increasing amounts without having to worry about their rising costs costing them customers.
Who do you make your payments out to? If you make the payments to Sallie Mae, Sallie Mae bought the debt from the savings and loan that made the original loan. In that case, the savings and loan does not get any more money when you make payments on your student loan.
I agree that it is not a bubble. The author may be correct that Kickstarter is not a sustainable model, but it will not "pop". If the author is correct, Kickstarter will just fade away, not burst.
It is not a conspiracy. They did it right out in the open. BTW, they can't make us have homosexual marriages because that isn't what a marriage is. Having a homosexual marriage is like having dry water.
There is a significant risk that I would be violating a patent held by one of the companies that got this law passed if I tried that. This law was passed because Philips and GE (and a couple other companies) could not sell enough of their newer, patented energy efficient light bulbs for as much as they wanted to while they had to compete with light bulbs that had completely expired patents. So, they got together with the ant-industrial "environmentalists"* to get a law passed to eliminate some of their competition.
*not all environmentalists are anti-industrial, and the anti-industrial "environmentalists" are more anti-industrial than they are environmentalist.
And now we are discovering why they passed the law requiring all light bulbs to be higher efficiency than standard incandescents, so that Philips can sell light bulbs for $30-60.
I do not know why you would expect a primary challenger to Obama to be an improvement. All of the complaints from the left that I have seen have been that Obama has not done enough to take control of economic activity.
What I find interesting is that the article you linked to considers Fascism to be a "far-right" ideology. When your political ideology goes from Communism, in which the government controls the means of production in the name of the people, on the far-left to Fascism, in which the government controls the means of production in the name of the people, on the far-right, you have a very short ideological spectrum. The only difference between fascism and communism is the reasons they use to justify government control over the economy.
Except that the problem was not the "free market" because, until Woodrow Wilson was elected and reversed the trend, segregation was well on the way to being eliminated. It was still fairly significant, but the trend was clearly there and the policies of the federal government pre-Woodrow Wilson were a significant factor (the federal government was desegregated when Wilson took office, he instituted policies resegregating many parts of the federal government, including the military).
You are apparently unaware of the fact that most of the cases of businesses discriminating were mandated by law. If it was not for the laws mandating discrimination, the businesses that did so would have lost enough business to their competitors that they would have gone out of business before long. It was already happening in the night club scene.
As others have pointed out, Rand is not Ron, but his son. Rand Paul is not as crazy as his father and knows that some issues that logically follow from his basic philosophy are not politically possible to address currently, so he has no intention of even trying. Ron Paul insists on pointing out that he believes that certain programs that are currently popular with the American people are unconstitutional and should be shut down (he is probably right on most of them). Rand on the other hand responds to questions about those programs by saying that they are politically popular and there is no way they are going to be discontinued any time soon so he has no intention of trying to do anything about them.
Right, because the airlines want their customers to be mad at them. He is suggesting that it be made the responsibility of companies that are accountable to the people that would be being groped and grabbed. Security theater does not sell airline tickets (at least not in the long run).
Except it turns out that the number in the article is bogus. According to this article the reason that Apple's tax rate appears so low is because they based their quarterly estimated taxes in the U.S.2011 on their 2010 profits (as the law requires) and saw a major increase in their profits in 2011. They will pay a balancing payment in 2012 for the amount that there quarterly tax payments in 2011 fell short of meeting their tax obligation. It will be a pretty hefty payment as well, since their profits approximately doubled from 2010 to 2011.
Slashdot Mirror
The science is pretty much settled,...
You mean the same way that many of these same people told us in the early 70s that the "science was settled" that if population growth wasn't stopped there would be massive increases in starvation throughout the world by the year 2000?
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.
and I began to think maybe you weren't, since the AGW proponents are the one's who seem to be seeking a political "solution" to the "problem" they believe exists, rather than just telling people the facts and letting them decide what action to take.
What happens if two men try to marry...?
What happens when a human tries to be a tomato? Your question makes just as much sense.
Considering that the AMA only represents a small fraction of actual practicing doctors, who cares? Of course, considering that one of the reasons that the AMA represents so few doctors is because they have often sold their support for certain programs even though most doctors actually opposed said programs, whether or not they support this one will be a question of whether or not there is money in it for the AMA (not the doctors who are members of the AMA, but just the AMA itself...and its executives).
Who?
My objection is to the fact that they took away a perfectly valid choice so that Philips and other manufacturers could get a higher profit on their new light bulbs. I have no problem whatsoever with Philips selling these light bulbs (well, except for the $60 one that they got several million government dollars to develop...with the condition being that it retail for less than $20). I have a problem with Congress passing a law making it illegal for someone to sell a dirt cheap light bulb that they can still make a profit on.
A couple of points. First, you are correct that Philips can sell bulbs at whatever price the market is prepared to buy them at. However, by eliminating the types of bulbs that can be the most cheaply manufactured, the law raised the lowest price that people can sell bulbs for. Thus giving the market a choice of either not buying bulbs or paying more for them. Second, the law was not "designed to reduce energy consumption", that is merely the argument they made to sell a law designed to increase the price of light bulbs. Even if it was designed to reduce energy consumption, it will not accomplish this task as studies have shown that as devices become more energy efficient, people use them more.
Finally, you would have to list a specific law designed to "protect the environment from pollution" in order for me to say whether or not I am unhappy about it. I am unhappy about seat belt laws as it is none of the government's business whether or not I choose to buy a car with seat belts or not (let alone whether or not I wear them). It should be up to me as to whether the added safety of seat belts is worth the added cost.
So, they got together with the ant-industrial "environmentalists"* to get a law passed to eliminate some of their competition.
So the anti-industrialists were promoting their cause by collaborating with the industrialists? Sneaky!
Yes
No, interracial marriage was never like having dry water. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. When inter-racial marriage was considered wrong it was considered "polluting the blood" or some such, no one argued that it was a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals have always had the same marriage rights as anyone else, they just were not interested in exercising them. Creating "homosexual marriages" makes the word marriage have no meaning.
Well, you are correct that they have a big interest in student loans. However, it is not the one you listed. Their interest in keeping the student loans coming is so that they can continue to spend money in ever increasing amounts without having to worry about their rising costs costing them customers.
Who do you make your payments out to? If you make the payments to Sallie Mae, Sallie Mae bought the debt from the savings and loan that made the original loan. In that case, the savings and loan does not get any more money when you make payments on your student loan.
I agree that it is not a bubble. The author may be correct that Kickstarter is not a sustainable model, but it will not "pop". If the author is correct, Kickstarter will just fade away, not burst.
It is not a conspiracy. They did it right out in the open. BTW, they can't make us have homosexual marriages because that isn't what a marriage is. Having a homosexual marriage is like having dry water.
There is a significant risk that I would be violating a patent held by one of the companies that got this law passed if I tried that. This law was passed because Philips and GE (and a couple other companies) could not sell enough of their newer, patented energy efficient light bulbs for as much as they wanted to while they had to compete with light bulbs that had completely expired patents. So, they got together with the ant-industrial "environmentalists"* to get a law passed to eliminate some of their competition.
*not all environmentalists are anti-industrial, and the anti-industrial "environmentalists" are more anti-industrial than they are environmentalist.
And now we are discovering why they passed the law requiring all light bulbs to be higher efficiency than standard incandescents, so that Philips can sell light bulbs for $30-60.
I do not know why you would expect a primary challenger to Obama to be an improvement. All of the complaints from the left that I have seen have been that Obama has not done enough to take control of economic activity.
What I find interesting is that the article you linked to considers Fascism to be a "far-right" ideology. When your political ideology goes from Communism, in which the government controls the means of production in the name of the people, on the far-left to Fascism, in which the government controls the means of production in the name of the people, on the far-right, you have a very short ideological spectrum. The only difference between fascism and communism is the reasons they use to justify government control over the economy.
Except that the problem was not the "free market" because, until Woodrow Wilson was elected and reversed the trend, segregation was well on the way to being eliminated. It was still fairly significant, but the trend was clearly there and the policies of the federal government pre-Woodrow Wilson were a significant factor (the federal government was desegregated when Wilson took office, he instituted policies resegregating many parts of the federal government, including the military).
You are apparently unaware of the fact that most of the cases of businesses discriminating were mandated by law. If it was not for the laws mandating discrimination, the businesses that did so would have lost enough business to their competitors that they would have gone out of business before long. It was already happening in the night club scene.
As others have pointed out, Rand is not Ron, but his son. Rand Paul is not as crazy as his father and knows that some issues that logically follow from his basic philosophy are not politically possible to address currently, so he has no intention of even trying. Ron Paul insists on pointing out that he believes that certain programs that are currently popular with the American people are unconstitutional and should be shut down (he is probably right on most of them). Rand on the other hand responds to questions about those programs by saying that they are politically popular and there is no way they are going to be discontinued any time soon so he has no intention of trying to do anything about them.
Well, perhaps you should come visit the world that the majority of Americans live in someday.
Who do you think the airports customers are?
Right, because the airlines want their customers to be mad at them. He is suggesting that it be made the responsibility of companies that are accountable to the people that would be being groped and grabbed. Security theater does not sell airline tickets (at least not in the long run).
The problem with that is that the Muslim Arabs learned the "Arabic number" system from Indian Hindus.
Except it turns out that the number in the article is bogus. According to this article the reason that Apple's tax rate appears so low is because they based their quarterly estimated taxes in the U.S.2011 on their 2010 profits (as the law requires) and saw a major increase in their profits in 2011. They will pay a balancing payment in 2012 for the amount that there quarterly tax payments in 2011 fell short of meeting their tax obligation. It will be a pretty hefty payment as well, since their profits approximately doubled from 2010 to 2011.