Hmm... seems strange that this is also the home of Michele Bachmann, who is very outspoken about "wasteful government spending" and a proponent of small government (http://www.michelebachmann.com/about/). This seems to go against those values and her push to keep jobs local and create jobs locally. However it does seem to fit with her less spoken about ideas of privatizing everything. I wonder if we should be drawing any conclusions from the fact, or coincidence, she sits on the Financial Services Committee. I would think once one state goes this route, others will follow suit. I can also see how having all of your data saved in the cloud (we aren't responsible for it) would be in the interest of any generic banking institution. Also, not having an open source platform could make transparency much more difficult, not that government or banking institutions would ever want to hide anything!
First, I appreciate your post and think maybe it could help some one... but I think any of us that actually click on this story probably know those things. I'm hoping you were just spurring conversation with some basic facts so you and I can rebut the "...We have only ONE place that we know life flourishes...." ideas together.
I can't agree with that premise. Even on our planet we have some extreme conditions: underwater lava flows and sea vents, frozen north and south poles, deserts, etc. These extreme-ophiles show there are life forms at every extreme our planet has, which also bolsters the idea that life can survive in many different places and conditions.
Now whether humans could survive in those places is a different issue; what would we accept as "survival" in this place?
*the author of this post has been at work for 13 hours of retail today, so I'm in need of something intelligent to read!*
Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat.
Bureaucrat? Possibly. Democrat? No way... his bio makes me think Republican for sure. He is former military, who are usually Republican (I make no judgment here). He formally worked/possibly still does for a large oil/mining company which usually means Republican (I am making judgment here). And through that career, it seems safe to assume he has gotten rich, which means Republican (again, judgment). If one takes those three observations (not necessarily in that order) I think Republican is a sure bet. And before I get the "troll label" A)most military members vote Republican, as they used to believe in small government and a strong defense force; and B) which party is fighting to keep the tax cuts for the richest 2.5% of our population? I'm not going to turn this into a political discussion, I'm just explaining my theory and answering the question.
Republican or Democrat, this policy stinks and really runs contradictory to "of, by, and for the people" and seems to me to be more fallout from the Citizens United verdict, which I still mourn.
The only thing you can sue about is if they did something wrong to you whist firing you.
Since we are in a technical legal discussion, I'm going to ask if you really meant "whist" (a card game, an early form of bridge, but without bidding) or "whilst" in your reply. I was not sure it was a word until I looked it up....
Also from wiki it seems "No U.S. state but Montana has chosen to statutorily modify the employment at-will rule"; I was under the impression it was mainly southern states....
I would like to apologize for the people that feel as if the military (and by that I mean the soldiers, not the big companies) are profiting from these wars. I doubt anyone joins our military to make money. I also am pretty sure these men and women would trade that money to have watched their kids grow up, rather than being in Irag or Afk for 2-6 years. I doubt the money was worth the PTSD (best case) or lost limbs, or the lost life (worst case). When I first read that posting I could understand most of it, but I immediately wanted to write about the "soldiers making a profit. Some of us appreciate your service. I may be biased, as I was headed to Annapolis until health problems stopped that, but I am very thankful it is not me being shot at everyday. I would imagine the worst is being the target of IED's everyday for 16 months, and on top of that having to reintegrate with society. How much is the strain on one's marriage worth? How much money does it take to justify not seeing your child for 16 months? So while yes the bank account may grow, I hope any American will think hard before jumping on that bandwagon.
Thank you to those that do serve; we need to be doing much more as a society to "do our part" than we are. I find it sad that we claim to honor out veterans then do so little to support them.
I would also never pay $10,000 more to get a Honda with an "acura" badge on it, but I know a lot of people do.
No kidding. I would much rather save the money and have a Honda RDX... except they are not the same cars. Stick to what you know; with the exception of the TSX, which is different than the Accord sold in the US, but sold as an Accord in the rest of the world, the product lines are completely different and evolve further apart every year.
I think the bigger problem is cops using "innocent" traffic stops as a way of searching your car. Very few people actually know the correct way to decline an unreasonable search, and even when one does, the cops will often still search the car. I have seen them put a dog, illegally I might add, into a car, get the dog excited, and then walk away. They have no intention of finding anything, but they know a full-grown German Sheppard will more than likely shred a leather interior. In fact, when done illegally, anything found cannot be used as evidence, but they still get off wasting your time, making you sweat (even innocent citizens should be worried anytime they are searched in this country), and destroying your car. Granted, there are the "1 in 10" good cops out there, but they are not the majority. I encourage all of my friends to know their rights and how to not give them up, but sadly, that is not enough. I like the defense of getting out a camera, but according to another/. post, that may be taken away soon.
I'm pretty sure this country used to have something to do with "rights" and "freedom" but I don't really see that anymore. I tried looking it up in a Texas school book, but it did not have anything about it either;-) (I hope someone gets that!)
Sounds very much like Charter in my area. I had multiple techs out, and no one on the phone would ever listen to what I was trying to tell them. Finally one night around 3am I got transferred to a very nice lady in Nebraska, who turned out to be in the engineering department (she coordinated with the actual engineers). She had been working with tech for 10 years or something like that. After actually LISTENING for a few minutes, she started running some tests over the line and found out I was right! I guess all those years of school and working for a large computer company taught me something. The very next day a senior tech came to my house, and within 30 minutes had the problem solved. It turns out their equipment, at a node within 50 yards of my house, was malfunctioning. They replaced it, and the problem was solved. Now, if only I did not have to spend 3 months working with operators and repair techs before I got the problem solved I would have been a happy customer. If I was not so fortunate to get transferred to that one lady that night I would still be dealing with their crap. I don't know what is worse: that for month after month (with me calling almost daily) they could not figure out the issue, or that they would not listen to me when I did their job in under an hour from my own cpu? Me thinks it is obvious they really don't care about customer service. I'm SURE they know exactly what % to keep the churn rate under to keep a profit, and know most people will either not change service providers or like me, only have one option. Just keep the service good enough to keep X% of customers and we will stay in the black - completely sad!
Do the companies provide as much speed as they advertise? Umm... no, not at all. I'm lucky to get my Charter Cable connection to work at all between midnight and 4am. I usually lose my connection 4-5 times daily (during the normal day, not the 12am to 4am). It is a POS but my only option for high speed. I have had 15-20 techs out at different times, and the last one finally admitted "no one gets the full speed" that is advertised. After talking to many of my "less tech savvy" neighbors I found out they think that the internet just goes out like that. And conveniently enough my internet connection just hates Hulu or any other video streaming site. I would be very surprised if anyone has a different experience with Charter (I love them!)...
Amen brother! And while the following posts seem to argue the validity of derivatives, the are purposely designed to confuse and mislead the average person. You can find interview after interview with the people that actually work in these markets in which they acknowledge A)these are very confusing and hard to follow (in fact many of them do not fully understand all of the principles involved), and B) they are designed this way to avoid scrutiny and create "privacy by confusion" allowing banks and these markets to operate free from oversight.
Do derivatives and these markets have a valid place in our financial system? Possibly, and there is plenty of room for a healthy debate on the topic. Do they have any business being mixed in with the average "deposit and loan" community bank? Absolutely not. The greed and arrogance of these banks is amazing. The previous post to which I am responding is correct about banks not being happy making money as they have for years and years. Now they have to generate fees and purposely try to mislead their customers so they can rack up said fees. I know my bank, soon to be former bank, now charges a yearly fee on my "free account, no matter what balance I keep. It is not enough that I never write checks, so all my banking online, live by my debit card (on which they make money), and use direct deposit. They now have to hold my direct deposit for an extra day before I can access it. NO longer is the money there at midnight, it is available sometime between a few hours to a day later (kind of like the cable guy). The bank cannot even tell me when it will be available.
I feel that it is sad to say, but the only way to move forward seems to be with a credit union. At least then I can, god forbid, use my money when I need it. Rather than argue amongst ourselves about derivatives, let us agree on a common conclusion: the banks are now in the business of screwing all of us over, and business is booming...
Okay, I agree there is much to discuss on this topic, but we really can't base any discussion on something Michelle Bachmann says. She is, and has been, completely out of relevance for quite a while. Not only does she prove she knows nothing about history, current events, or logic every time she opens her mouth, but she makes her career by saying inflammatory comments that outrage some group (political, social, or racial).
So lets please discuss this topic. I weigh in on the side of using every electronic counter-measure we have, but let us also leave military retaliation as a viable option. If our country (especially our infrastructure) is being attacked by "hackers" based in a certain country (whether state-sanctioned or acting independently) we should be able to respond with force to stop the attacks. There are many scenarios in which a country would use a cyber-attack as the opening salvo to a military operation.
Example: country "A" launches a massive cyber-attack against country "B". They try to shut down the power grid, the communication systems, the water and sewer systems, and the transportation networks. While country "B" is in complete chaos (such as the blackout in the northeast US a few years ago), country "A" attacks "B". Depending on the success of the cyber-attacks, country "A" might have an easy victory. However if country "B" has chosen to attack in order to defend itself against the cyber-attacks, it stands a better chance of surviving or winning. I acknowledge this scenario does not cover all situations, it is just ONE example.
I don't think we should be dropping nukes because a 14 year old kid somewhere tries to hack into the local DMV office. It is known, however, China operates entire squads devoted to cyber-attacks. IMO, the large variance of potential sources of cyber-attacks makes having a blanket response to all threats impossible to develop. We must respond to each threat individually and uniquely. I would see this policy resembling our policy regarding terrorism. I'm not saying that is a good thing, just a potential likeness.
I would love to own my own business... The progressives are hell-bent at destroying and redistributing wealth, they are dangerous, clueless, and evil.
Yes, because the top 10% controlling 90% of the wealth leaves you so much room to advance in business. I guess the "progressives" are taking away all of the "facts" and "education" from you as well. There is a reason behind why the largest companies refer to the average American as "peasants" and "serfs" in their business plans. Face it, we live in a plutocracy, and "we the people" have a very, very small piece of the pie. If you fear the progressives there is no need for you to buy into a business; you have already been sold a bill of goods....
Also, don't leave out those of us that spend a few minutes on Farmville and such to see what our family does on the web, and to see what kind of programs/malware my laptop is getting exposed to everyday.
I completely agree with you about candidates lying. I have come to the saddening conclusion that even good people are corrupted by the system. Companies are not spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying in Washington for nothing; they are getting results that favor them. I think Obama had great hopes but was naive about how much money was working against him. There are 4 lobbyist to every 1 elected official in Washington; what does that say about our country? That it is for sale, and you and I do not have the budget to compete. Now that the Supreme Court has taken away any spending limits for companies, I fear it is going to get much worse....
I suppose it really does not matter to point out that Bush & Co created our debt, whereas he inherited a surplus. I say "suppose" because you have this information at your fingertips but either don't care and support your Republican candidate blindly, or don't want to know because "facts" only muddy the water. This country needs people that are passionate like you to look at the facts/truth and act accordingly. Clinton inherited a huge debt from Reagan/Bush I, and left office with a surplus and paying down the national debt. We also had no major wars and a great economy. Bush II left us in, let's say, "worse shape" and since he had 8 years in office, it might take Obama more than 1 year to turn things around. As a fiscal conservative, you should be happy that Obama at least cares enough to produce accurate budget numbers, whereas Bush basically produced made-up numbers that were off by at least a trillion dollars. We can't start getting rid of the debt until we know how much it is in the first place. The second step is to get our economy going again, so we can collect the tax dollars a strong economy produces, but we might need some help from the "party of no" to get things going. Since you have chosen to stick with your party, can you at least write your representatives about doing more than saying "no" and not offering any ideas. "Trickle down" economics do not work; can we move on now and try other ideas? Notice I am not just slinging mud, rather asking for your help in motivating GOP reps to do something....
Thank you for getting the point. I am not attempting to make light of disabilities, or to compare an inconvenience with a life-threatening situation. What I can do to accommodate the passenger/person with a nut-allergy is to be polite by not eating the nuts in their direct vicinity, wash my hands before touching said persons, and to be mindful of where I dispose of my trash/scraps. Nuts in general/almonds in particular are a super-food, and a convenient snack, so I don't think I'm out of line to eat them. Most restaurants post signs warning of potential exposure to nuts so people with nut-allergies can be aware or avoid those places. Which brings me to the main point: it is the responsibility of the person with said allergies to be mindful of conditions which can aggravate their allergy. It's a little thing called "personal responsibility." It comes down to how you feel about personal responsibility versus the community's need to be responsible for you. While I agree I should not be an asshole and throw almonds at someone with a nut-allergy (plus wash my hands, etc.), which is the community side of things, it is ultimately the responsibility of the person with the allergy to protect him/herself. The restaurant that uses peanut oil only warns of the possible exposure for someone with a nut-allergy; they do not close the restaurant or change the entire menu.
I would also respectfully disagree with the post stating the majority of people have nut-allergies. The majority do not have this allergy, and while we should be be respectful and minimize an allergy sufferer's exposure (community responsibility), the majority should not be restricted from eating any nut because some have an allergy. It is the allergy sufferer's responsibility to protect him/herself (personal responsibility) by making the decision whether to board an airplane, or ride in an elevator, or enter into a particular restaurant.
Again, either side can take this argument to extremes, but what we are discussing is "personal responsibility" vs "societal responsibility." I believe with a little of both we can keep the plane and the snacks without killing people.
"Get these motherf*cking snacks off my motherf*cking plane!!"
I know it is not PC to say, but this is a sad joke. People should get over themselves and stop demanding the world change around them. It is as if "only-child syndrome" is now the standard. I am starting to find myself allergic to work, bills, and anything that inconveniences me in the slightest. The plane does not bother me as I do not fly; I am allergic to paying for tickets but the airlines refuse to accommodate me. And I do not need to park in the blue spaces, as I am allergic to parking in spaces; I need to just get out of my car where I want. Now if the police would stop discriminating against me by towing my car when I leave it on the sidewalk! They will all regret it when I file a lawsuit and they learn I am allergic to verdicts against me!
Um...do none of the "Obama is spending us to ruin" people realize TARP was/is Bush's baby? I'm sure its nice to blame the bailouts on Obama, but its factually inaccurate, as is most of the GOP's arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... seems strange that this is also the home of Michele Bachmann, who is very outspoken about "wasteful government spending" and a proponent of small government (http://www.michelebachmann.com/about/). This seems to go against those values and her push to keep jobs local and create jobs locally. However it does seem to fit with her less spoken about ideas of privatizing everything. I wonder if we should be drawing any conclusions from the fact, or coincidence, she sits on the Financial Services Committee. I would think once one state goes this route, others will follow suit. I can also see how having all of your data saved in the cloud (we aren't responsible for it) would be in the interest of any generic banking institution. Also, not having an open source platform could make transparency much more difficult, not that government or banking institutions would ever want to hide anything!
I'm pretty sure the tidal locked planet/moon will have a different orbit than a rotating planet/moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_gradient
First, I appreciate your post and think maybe it could help some one... but I think any of us that actually click on this story probably know those things. I'm hoping you were just spurring conversation with some basic facts so you and I can rebut the "...We have only ONE place that we know life flourishes...." ideas together.
I can't agree with that premise. Even on our planet we have some extreme conditions: underwater lava flows and sea vents, frozen north and south poles, deserts, etc. These extreme-ophiles show there are life forms at every extreme our planet has, which also bolsters the idea that life can survive in many different places and conditions.
Now whether humans could survive in those places is a different issue; what would we accept as "survival" in this place?
*the author of this post has been at work for 13 hours of retail today, so I'm in need of something intelligent to read!*
Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat.
Bureaucrat? Possibly. Democrat? No way... his bio makes me think Republican for sure. He is former military, who are usually Republican (I make no judgment here). He formally worked/possibly still does for a large oil/mining company which usually means Republican (I am making judgment here). And through that career, it seems safe to assume he has gotten rich, which means Republican (again, judgment). If one takes those three observations (not necessarily in that order) I think Republican is a sure bet. And before I get the "troll label" A)most military members vote Republican, as they used to believe in small government and a strong defense force; and B) which party is fighting to keep the tax cuts for the richest 2.5% of our population? I'm not going to turn this into a political discussion, I'm just explaining my theory and answering the question.
Republican or Democrat, this policy stinks and really runs contradictory to "of, by, and for the people" and seems to me to be more fallout from the Citizens United verdict, which I still mourn.
The only thing you can sue about is if they did something wrong to you whist firing you.
Since we are in a technical legal discussion, I'm going to ask if you really meant "whist" (a card game, an early form of bridge, but without bidding) or "whilst" in your reply. I was not sure it was a word until I looked it up....
Also from wiki it seems "No U.S. state but Montana has chosen to statutorily modify the employment at-will rule"; I was under the impression it was mainly southern states....
I would like to apologize for the people that feel as if the military (and by that I mean the soldiers, not the big companies) are profiting from these wars. I doubt anyone joins our military to make money. I also am pretty sure these men and women would trade that money to have watched their kids grow up, rather than being in Irag or Afk for 2-6 years. I doubt the money was worth the PTSD (best case) or lost limbs, or the lost life (worst case). When I first read that posting I could understand most of it, but I immediately wanted to write about the "soldiers making a profit. Some of us appreciate your service. I may be biased, as I was headed to Annapolis until health problems stopped that, but I am very thankful it is not me being shot at everyday. I would imagine the worst is being the target of IED's everyday for 16 months, and on top of that having to reintegrate with society. How much is the strain on one's marriage worth? How much money does it take to justify not seeing your child for 16 months? So while yes the bank account may grow, I hope any American will think hard before jumping on that bandwagon.
Thank you to those that do serve; we need to be doing much more as a society to "do our part" than we are. I find it sad that we claim to honor out veterans then do so little to support them.
Lets not forget that GSM will be phased out for UMTS which is already being replaced by LTE...
I would also never pay $10,000 more to get a Honda with an "acura" badge on it, but I know a lot of people do.
No kidding. I would much rather save the money and have a Honda RDX... except they are not the same cars. Stick to what you know; with the exception of the TSX, which is different than the Accord sold in the US, but sold as an Accord in the rest of the world, the product lines are completely different and evolve further apart every year.
Also look at how many of the same accelerator problems Ford had during the same time, but it was barely reported....
Ummm... excuse me, but when you declare shenanigans it is time to get your brooms out, not sticks!
I think it was called "The Shield" ; Vic Mackey is everywhere!
I think the bigger problem is cops using "innocent" traffic stops as a way of searching your car. Very few people actually know the correct way to decline an unreasonable search, and even when one does, the cops will often still search the car. I have seen them put a dog, illegally I might add, into a car, get the dog excited, and then walk away. They have no intention of finding anything, but they know a full-grown German Sheppard will more than likely shred a leather interior. In fact, when done illegally, anything found cannot be used as evidence, but they still get off wasting your time, making you sweat (even innocent citizens should be worried anytime they are searched in this country), and destroying your car. Granted, there are the "1 in 10" good cops out there, but they are not the majority. I encourage all of my friends to know their rights and how to not give them up, but sadly, that is not enough. I like the defense of getting out a camera, but according to another /. post, that may be taken away soon.
I'm pretty sure this country used to have something to do with "rights" and "freedom" but I don't really see that anymore. I tried looking it up in a Texas school book, but it did not have anything about it either ;-) (I hope someone gets that!)
Sounds very much like Charter in my area. I had multiple techs out, and no one on the phone would ever listen to what I was trying to tell them. Finally one night around 3am I got transferred to a very nice lady in Nebraska, who turned out to be in the engineering department (she coordinated with the actual engineers). She had been working with tech for 10 years or something like that. After actually LISTENING for a few minutes, she started running some tests over the line and found out I was right! I guess all those years of school and working for a large computer company taught me something. The very next day a senior tech came to my house, and within 30 minutes had the problem solved. It turns out their equipment, at a node within 50 yards of my house, was malfunctioning. They replaced it, and the problem was solved. Now, if only I did not have to spend 3 months working with operators and repair techs before I got the problem solved I would have been a happy customer. If I was not so fortunate to get transferred to that one lady that night I would still be dealing with their crap. I don't know what is worse: that for month after month (with me calling almost daily) they could not figure out the issue, or that they would not listen to me when I did their job in under an hour from my own cpu? Me thinks it is obvious they really don't care about customer service. I'm SURE they know exactly what % to keep the churn rate under to keep a profit, and know most people will either not change service providers or like me, only have one option. Just keep the service good enough to keep X% of customers and we will stay in the black - completely sad!
Do the companies provide as much speed as they advertise? Umm... no, not at all. I'm lucky to get my Charter Cable connection to work at all between midnight and 4am. I usually lose my connection 4-5 times daily (during the normal day, not the 12am to 4am). It is a POS but my only option for high speed. I have had 15-20 techs out at different times, and the last one finally admitted "no one gets the full speed" that is advertised. After talking to many of my "less tech savvy" neighbors I found out they think that the internet just goes out like that. And conveniently enough my internet connection just hates Hulu or any other video streaming site. I would be very surprised if anyone has a different experience with Charter (I love them!)...
Amen brother! And while the following posts seem to argue the validity of derivatives, the are purposely designed to confuse and mislead the average person. You can find interview after interview with the people that actually work in these markets in which they acknowledge A)these are very confusing and hard to follow (in fact many of them do not fully understand all of the principles involved), and B) they are designed this way to avoid scrutiny and create "privacy by confusion" allowing banks and these markets to operate free from oversight.
Do derivatives and these markets have a valid place in our financial system? Possibly, and there is plenty of room for a healthy debate on the topic. Do they have any business being mixed in with the average "deposit and loan" community bank? Absolutely not. The greed and arrogance of these banks is amazing. The previous post to which I am responding is correct about banks not being happy making money as they have for years and years. Now they have to generate fees and purposely try to mislead their customers so they can rack up said fees. I know my bank, soon to be former bank, now charges a yearly fee on my "free account, no matter what balance I keep. It is not enough that I never write checks, so all my banking online, live by my debit card (on which they make money), and use direct deposit. They now have to hold my direct deposit for an extra day before I can access it. NO longer is the money there at midnight, it is available sometime between a few hours to a day later (kind of like the cable guy). The bank cannot even tell me when it will be available.
I feel that it is sad to say, but the only way to move forward seems to be with a credit union. At least then I can, god forbid, use my money when I need it. Rather than argue amongst ourselves about derivatives, let us agree on a common conclusion: the banks are now in the business of screwing all of us over, and business is booming...
*is still standing and applauding*
Okay, I agree there is much to discuss on this topic, but we really can't base any discussion on something Michelle Bachmann says. She is, and has been, completely out of relevance for quite a while. Not only does she prove she knows nothing about history, current events, or logic every time she opens her mouth, but she makes her career by saying inflammatory comments that outrage some group (political, social, or racial).
So lets please discuss this topic. I weigh in on the side of using every electronic counter-measure we have, but let us also leave military retaliation as a viable option. If our country (especially our infrastructure) is being attacked by "hackers" based in a certain country (whether state-sanctioned or acting independently) we should be able to respond with force to stop the attacks. There are many scenarios in which a country would use a cyber-attack as the opening salvo to a military operation.
Example: country "A" launches a massive cyber-attack against country "B". They try to shut down the power grid, the communication systems, the water and sewer systems, and the transportation networks. While country "B" is in complete chaos (such as the blackout in the northeast US a few years ago), country "A" attacks "B". Depending on the success of the cyber-attacks, country "A" might have an easy victory. However if country "B" has chosen to attack in order to defend itself against the cyber-attacks, it stands a better chance of surviving or winning. I acknowledge this scenario does not cover all situations, it is just ONE example.
I don't think we should be dropping nukes because a 14 year old kid somewhere tries to hack into the local DMV office. It is known, however, China operates entire squads devoted to cyber-attacks. IMO, the large variance of potential sources of cyber-attacks makes having a blanket response to all threats impossible to develop. We must respond to each threat individually and uniquely. I would see this policy resembling our policy regarding terrorism. I'm not saying that is a good thing, just a potential likeness.
I miss Quake, the original! How many hours/days/weeks did I waste playing that one!
I would love to own my own business... The progressives are hell-bent at destroying and redistributing wealth, they are dangerous, clueless, and evil.
Yes, because the top 10% controlling 90% of the wealth leaves you so much room to advance in business. I guess the "progressives" are taking away all of the "facts" and "education" from you as well. There is a reason behind why the largest companies refer to the average American as "peasants" and "serfs" in their business plans. Face it, we live in a plutocracy, and "we the people" have a very, very small piece of the pie. If you fear the progressives there is no need for you to buy into a business; you have already been sold a bill of goods....
Also, don't leave out those of us that spend a few minutes on Farmville and such to see what our family does on the web, and to see what kind of programs/malware my laptop is getting exposed to everyday.
I completely agree with you about candidates lying. I have come to the saddening conclusion that even good people are corrupted by the system. Companies are not spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying in Washington for nothing; they are getting results that favor them. I think Obama had great hopes but was naive about how much money was working against him. There are 4 lobbyist to every 1 elected official in Washington; what does that say about our country? That it is for sale, and you and I do not have the budget to compete. Now that the Supreme Court has taken away any spending limits for companies, I fear it is going to get much worse....
I suppose it really does not matter to point out that Bush & Co created our debt, whereas he inherited a surplus. I say "suppose" because you have this information at your fingertips but either don't care and support your Republican candidate blindly, or don't want to know because "facts" only muddy the water. This country needs people that are passionate like you to look at the facts/truth and act accordingly. Clinton inherited a huge debt from Reagan/Bush I, and left office with a surplus and paying down the national debt. We also had no major wars and a great economy. Bush II left us in, let's say, "worse shape" and since he had 8 years in office, it might take Obama more than 1 year to turn things around. As a fiscal conservative, you should be happy that Obama at least cares enough to produce accurate budget numbers, whereas Bush basically produced made-up numbers that were off by at least a trillion dollars. We can't start getting rid of the debt until we know how much it is in the first place. The second step is to get our economy going again, so we can collect the tax dollars a strong economy produces, but we might need some help from the "party of no" to get things going. Since you have chosen to stick with your party, can you at least write your representatives about doing more than saying "no" and not offering any ideas. "Trickle down" economics do not work; can we move on now and try other ideas? Notice I am not just slinging mud, rather asking for your help in motivating GOP reps to do something....
Thank you for getting the point. I am not attempting to make light of disabilities, or to compare an inconvenience with a life-threatening situation. What I can do to accommodate the passenger/person with a nut-allergy is to be polite by not eating the nuts in their direct vicinity, wash my hands before touching said persons, and to be mindful of where I dispose of my trash/scraps. Nuts in general/almonds in particular are a super-food, and a convenient snack, so I don't think I'm out of line to eat them. Most restaurants post signs warning of potential exposure to nuts so people with nut-allergies can be aware or avoid those places. Which brings me to the main point: it is the responsibility of the person with said allergies to be mindful of conditions which can aggravate their allergy. It's a little thing called "personal responsibility." It comes down to how you feel about personal responsibility versus the community's need to be responsible for you. While I agree I should not be an asshole and throw almonds at someone with a nut-allergy (plus wash my hands, etc.), which is the community side of things, it is ultimately the responsibility of the person with the allergy to protect him/herself. The restaurant that uses peanut oil only warns of the possible exposure for someone with a nut-allergy; they do not close the restaurant or change the entire menu.
I would also respectfully disagree with the post stating the majority of people have nut-allergies. The majority do not have this allergy, and while we should be be respectful and minimize an allergy sufferer's exposure (community responsibility), the majority should not be restricted from eating any nut because some have an allergy. It is the allergy sufferer's responsibility to protect him/herself (personal responsibility) by making the decision whether to board an airplane, or ride in an elevator, or enter into a particular restaurant.
Again, either side can take this argument to extremes, but what we are discussing is "personal responsibility" vs "societal responsibility." I believe with a little of both we can keep the plane and the snacks without killing people.
"Get these motherf*cking snacks off my motherf*cking plane!!"
I know it is not PC to say, but this is a sad joke. People should get over themselves and stop demanding the world change around them. It is as if "only-child syndrome" is now the standard. I am starting to find myself allergic to work, bills, and anything that inconveniences me in the slightest. The plane does not bother me as I do not fly; I am allergic to paying for tickets but the airlines refuse to accommodate me. And I do not need to park in the blue spaces, as I am allergic to parking in spaces; I need to just get out of my car where I want. Now if the police would stop discriminating against me by towing my car when I leave it on the sidewalk! They will all regret it when I file a lawsuit and they learn I am allergic to verdicts against me!
Um...do none of the "Obama is spending us to ruin" people realize TARP was/is Bush's baby? I'm sure its nice to blame the bailouts on Obama, but its factually inaccurate, as is most of the GOP's arguments.
Amen! Go Stefan!