If you are right, then Obama will get a second term. Huckabee will not get the conservative vote ("christian" or otherwise), for the very simple reason that he is not a conservative and no longer is even doing a very good job of pretending to be one.
It's also very amusing to see how the Tea Party helped the Dems retain the Senate in 2010, because if the GOP had candidates other than the wicked witch of Delaware and what's her name in Nevada, they would've won the Senate as well as the House.
There are two important points here. The first one is that without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have won as many seats in the Senate as they did. Second, In the long run it is better for the Republicans that the Dem from Delaware is in the Senate than if Mike Castle was. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two of them is that Mike Castle would not have voted for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader in the new Senate.
It is real simple. Fox News broadcasts as many negative articles as positive about Democrats and as many positive articles as negative about Republicans (this according to the Pew Foundation). Since most people just know that Republicans are evil and Democrats are good, Fox News must be very biased.
You see the first objection you raise to allowing open competition is caused by the lack of competition. It isn't that companies don't make enough money to "properly" connect all of their costumers, it is that the companies have no incentive to do so. If I had the choice of three or four companies providing me with cable connection (and except in rare circumstances that is all it would be), I could choose the one that provided me the service to cost I wished.
As far as communities that only have dial up, that is not something we should be addressing, that is something for them to address as they choose. We shouldn't be adding redundant connections to houses either, but we should allow those that think they can do a better job of it than the present incumbents to give it a try.
As to people complaining about the US government bailing out companies, that is because the way the free market is supposed to work is that if you make that kind of bad decision, you company goes out of business and someone else who isn't that stupid gets your customers.
He located evidence that the mother is not the best suited of the two parents to keep custody of the child. In the US this is blasphemy of the highest order. He shall be stoned forthwith.
You know that might actually be it. It would be interesting to see if the prosecutor has shown such a tendency in the past.
I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution. If his ex-wife had brought a civil suit, I would still think he should win, but that would be a sensible case. The man's fear of the child being exposed to domestic violence (possibly even physical abuse of the child) was perfectly legitimate. I would really like to know why the prosecutor is really going after this man. It sounds personal.
The amount of corn farmland in the U.S. is artificially high because the government subsidizes corn. If the government did not subsidize corn, fewer farmers would grow corn.
No, sugar beets are only grown in quantity because the U.S. has a tariff on sugar. The U.S. government maintains a tariff on sugar so that sugar in the U.S. is priced enough above the world price to make it profitable to make sugar from sugar beets.
That is a very good point. In order to understand this sort of thing, you need to take a look at the very real differences between men and women. We do not fully understand what these differences are, but we know some of them. For example, when exposed to cold temperatures, men will die of hypothermia more rapidly than women, while women will get frostbite more rapidly than men. This results from the fact that women reduce the blood flow to the extremities more rapidly when exposed to the cold more rapidly than men do. This results in women maintaining their core body temperature longer.
That is not true. Automobile companies made money using the roads that existed before the automobile was first introduced. While government subsidies may make automobile manufacturing more profitable, automobile manufacturers were making a profit before the government started doling out any subsidies.
I am not conceding that there really are that much in the way of government subsidies for automobiles, but even if there is, the government subsidies occurred after the economic success of the automobile. They did not create the economic success of the automobile.
I didn't know about the water angle, but I knew he was counting on government funds to make his venture into wind energy profitable. He didn't invest in wind energy because he believed in wind energy, or because he thought it was a profitable venture. He invested in wind energy because he thought he could get the government to pick up the tab for the parts that make wind energy a money loser.
I'm not particularly familiar with how he was planning to go about this, but it's a pretty good bet that a lot of the trouble came from subsidies.
Yes, he failed to convince politicians to give him sufficient subsidies to make this a profitable venture. When he got involved in this he ran a big advertising campaign that federal and state governments should make a big push for wind power by increasing the amount of tax dollars that went to subsidize it. He failed to generate the public support necessary to get politicians to spend the kind of money on it he needed to make a profit.
What exactly are you supposed to ask the judge when a defendant's whole defense hinges on terms you don't understand, and that you cannot seek clarification on until the whole trial is over?
If you don't understand the terms and the judge does not provide you with a definition that you understand, then you should find the defendant "not guilty". In that situation you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. Then you tell the press after the trial why you voted to acquit, because the judge failed to adequately define the terms the defense team was basing its defense on. The same thing works if you don't understand terms the prosecution uses, find the defendant "not guilty".
No, sorry, I don't see where it falls apart. I see where the market might easily become saturated enough that none of the companies make any money, but that's not usually a complaint that people make.
I'm not advocating for homeopathy, but from what I understand... in some cases modern medicine would consider itself doing well if they could reach the levels of relief they get with placebos using actual medicine.
A drug cannot get approval from the FDA if it is no better than a placebo. In many cases it must demonstrate in clinical trials that it has superior results to not only a placebo, but, also, to any existing drug which is used to treat the problem.
As corporations get larger, the distinction between who represents the government and who represents the corporation become blurred, just look at Goldman Sachs and the present Administration in the U.S..
Perhaps your government can control facebook. Today. Does the government of Paraguay have any influence?
That's because Facebook's central offices and owner do not reside in Paraguay. So, you are right, Paraguay's government would prefer a company based in Paraguay. However, they would prefer one large company based in Paraguay to many small companies based in Paraguay.
We have already seen how the government would change if those companies were not based where the U.S. government could control them, they would work to favor their domestic competitors.
Governments prefer big corporations. One or two big corporations are much easier to control than a lot of small companies (some of which the government might not even be aware of). This is part of the reason why the more an industry is regulated, "to protect the little guy", the more it is dominated by big corporations (and the more the little guy gets screwed over). The effect of government regulations is to consolidate control of an industry in the hands of a few corporations, even if a government regulation is.intended to do the opposite.
NO, the Woodrow Wilson Administration wanted to be able to control this new technology and made a deal with AT&T to do so. The Woodrow Wilson Administration believed (probably correctly) that it was easier to control one large company than a bunch of small ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so she's about 10 IQ points above the last 3 Democratic Party nominees
If you are right, then Obama will get a second term. Huckabee will not get the conservative vote ("christian" or otherwise), for the very simple reason that he is not a conservative and no longer is even doing a very good job of pretending to be one.
It's also very amusing to see how the Tea Party helped the Dems retain the Senate in 2010, because if the GOP had candidates other than the wicked witch of Delaware and what's her name in Nevada, they would've won the Senate as well as the House.
There are two important points here. The first one is that without the Tea Party, the Republicans would not have won as many seats in the Senate as they did. Second, In the long run it is better for the Republicans that the Dem from Delaware is in the Senate than if Mike Castle was. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two of them is that Mike Castle would not have voted for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader in the new Senate.
It is real simple. Fox News broadcasts as many negative articles as positive about Democrats and as many positive articles as negative about Republicans (this according to the Pew Foundation). Since most people just know that Republicans are evil and Democrats are good, Fox News must be very biased.
No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization.
So, you are saying that there are no news organizations, and never have been any.
You see the first objection you raise to allowing open competition is caused by the lack of competition. It isn't that companies don't make enough money to "properly" connect all of their costumers, it is that the companies have no incentive to do so. If I had the choice of three or four companies providing me with cable connection (and except in rare circumstances that is all it would be), I could choose the one that provided me the service to cost I wished.
As far as communities that only have dial up, that is not something we should be addressing, that is something for them to address as they choose. We shouldn't be adding redundant connections to houses either, but we should allow those that think they can do a better job of it than the present incumbents to give it a try.
As to people complaining about the US government bailing out companies, that is because the way the free market is supposed to work is that if you make that kind of bad decision, you company goes out of business and someone else who isn't that stupid gets your customers.
He located evidence that the mother is not the best suited of the two parents to keep custody of the child. In the US this is blasphemy of the highest order. He shall be stoned forthwith.
You know that might actually be it. It would be interesting to see if the prosecutor has shown such a tendency in the past.
I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution. If his ex-wife had brought a civil suit, I would still think he should win, but that would be a sensible case. The man's fear of the child being exposed to domestic violence (possibly even physical abuse of the child) was perfectly legitimate. I would really like to know why the prosecutor is really going after this man. It sounds personal.
The amount of corn farmland in the U.S. is artificially high because the government subsidizes corn. If the government did not subsidize corn, fewer farmers would grow corn.
No, sugar beets are only grown in quantity because the U.S. has a tariff on sugar. The U.S. government maintains a tariff on sugar so that sugar in the U.S. is priced enough above the world price to make it profitable to make sugar from sugar beets.
This may not be about regulating the Internet to you, but it is to the FCC and other government agents.
That is a very good point. In order to understand this sort of thing, you need to take a look at the very real differences between men and women. We do not fully understand what these differences are, but we know some of them. For example, when exposed to cold temperatures, men will die of hypothermia more rapidly than women, while women will get frostbite more rapidly than men. This results from the fact that women reduce the blood flow to the extremities more rapidly when exposed to the cold more rapidly than men do. This results in women maintaining their core body temperature longer.
Your point being?
That is not true. Automobile companies made money using the roads that existed before the automobile was first introduced. While government subsidies may make automobile manufacturing more profitable, automobile manufacturers were making a profit before the government started doling out any subsidies.
I am not conceding that there really are that much in the way of government subsidies for automobiles, but even if there is, the government subsidies occurred after the economic success of the automobile. They did not create the economic success of the automobile.
I didn't know about the water angle, but I knew he was counting on government funds to make his venture into wind energy profitable. He didn't invest in wind energy because he believed in wind energy, or because he thought it was a profitable venture. He invested in wind energy because he thought he could get the government to pick up the tab for the parts that make wind energy a money loser.
I'm not particularly familiar with how he was planning to go about this, but it's a pretty good bet that a lot of the trouble came from subsidies.
Yes, he failed to convince politicians to give him sufficient subsidies to make this a profitable venture. When he got involved in this he ran a big advertising campaign that federal and state governments should make a big push for wind power by increasing the amount of tax dollars that went to subsidize it. He failed to generate the public support necessary to get politicians to spend the kind of money on it he needed to make a profit.
What exactly are you supposed to ask the judge when a defendant's whole defense hinges on terms you don't understand, and that you cannot seek clarification on until the whole trial is over?
If you don't understand the terms and the judge does not provide you with a definition that you understand, then you should find the defendant "not guilty". In that situation you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. Then you tell the press after the trial why you voted to acquit, because the judge failed to adequately define the terms the defense team was basing its defense on. The same thing works if you don't understand terms the prosecution uses, find the defendant "not guilty".
No, sorry, I don't see where it falls apart. I see where the market might easily become saturated enough that none of the companies make any money, but that's not usually a complaint that people make.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I won't be getting another hot wife for Christmas, but then I only ever wanted one anyway.
br. And no, my wife doesn't read slashdot (although, I should probably show her this post).
Yes, they do, thanks to already exisitng government regulations.
I'm not advocating for homeopathy, but from what I understand ... in some cases modern medicine would consider itself doing well if they could reach the levels of relief they get with placebos using actual medicine.
A drug cannot get approval from the FDA if it is no better than a placebo. In many cases it must demonstrate in clinical trials that it has superior results to not only a placebo, but, also, to any existing drug which is used to treat the problem.
As corporations get larger, the distinction between who represents the government and who represents the corporation become blurred, just look at Goldman Sachs and the present Administration in the U.S..
Perhaps your government can control facebook. Today. Does the government of Paraguay have any influence?
That's because Facebook's central offices and owner do not reside in Paraguay. So, you are right, Paraguay's government would prefer a company based in Paraguay. However, they would prefer one large company based in Paraguay to many small companies based in Paraguay.
We have already seen how the government would change if those companies were not based where the U.S. government could control them, they would work to favor their domestic competitors.
1) Too big for governments to influence
Governments prefer big corporations. One or two big corporations are much easier to control than a lot of small companies (some of which the government might not even be aware of). This is part of the reason why the more an industry is regulated, "to protect the little guy", the more it is dominated by big corporations (and the more the little guy gets screwed over). The effect of government regulations is to consolidate control of an industry in the hands of a few corporations, even if a government regulation is.intended to do the opposite.
NO, the Woodrow Wilson Administration wanted to be able to control this new technology and made a deal with AT&T to do so. The Woodrow Wilson Administration believed (probably correctly) that it was easier to control one large company than a bunch of small ones.