I suspect the US has ran that scenario, as is the job of the military. I doubt it's on the table and an actual response. Bad PR, long term damage to neighboring countries. for what? nothing we can't do with convention air forces.
need? no. Food, water, shelter, currently owned electronics, transportation, entertainment.
So, what need? do people needs an iPhone? xbox? new computer?
hmm, clothing would rise about 25%..maybe.
I m seriously thinking of anything poor people NEED that would become unavailable for the short term?
OTOH, if that means all those toys get made here, then the poor people would get living wage JOBS; which they needs. For the record, I have no problem paying 25% more for something knowing it's made in the US by a US company. The increased wage base would increase tax revenue and now there is more tax money.
Some reaming good would go up. Some electronics wouldn't be easy to get for a while. We would still have food, gas, cars, electricity, all the stuff we currently have.
Hell, it might be good for us.
Now imagine Chine getting it's oil and food imports cut. It would implode.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
we are talkign abotu a party that when they propose a bill, and Obama AGREES WITH IT, they pull their support form the bill they created.
Nice of you to selective choose 'judges'
look at all the appointees. the republican stall in filibusterer on even the most mild appointee positions. sometime appointees they had wanted under the previous administration. It's HORRID. IT isn't normal politics. It's the worse EVERY. and it's controlled by a group that wants everyone to be forced to their own religious views. THAT ALONE should scare people away.
I"m not talking about outliers, or one or two talking stupid shit. I'm talking about a complete party stance to stop ANYTHING they come from Obama. IT's shocking in its extremest.
George Bush did propose a cap of 250K. I"m not sure why you think that is a lie.
He did so because insurance companies were, and continue to, lie about Tort.
Yes, both do it, but the pubs FUD has basically gone to unprecedented level, and as moved into media ownership..
To say the do it the same is ignorant.
I listen to many sources, as well as keep up to date on congress action and check sources. so, yes I do know what I am taking about.
actually they did. "They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out." yeah, the depression proved that to be folly.
BTW, My elderly mother lives with me and my family. With SS we still barely get by.
I make my own toys, so please explain how I can't do that? DId you miss the big push from the Obama's to grow your own food? Control what I watch? no they don't.
Christians want to tell what people who aren't part of their faith what they can do. They want to keep people ignorant, they want special rights, and they want a free ride.
"Whether you can protect yourself." False.
"Whether you can allow smokers in your business." gosh, they don't want people to force poison onto other people, what a travesty.
I voted for him, but i am not disappointed, because I know what he was up against. Many people seem to think the president can sweep away everything immediately.
They usually can not. And sine many of Bushes implementation after the war on terror are buried beneath a layer of management and the opposition will do anything to stop anything you want to do, regardless if they had agreed with it in the beginning, it makes it even harder.
Remember, the pubs stance is all about making Obama a 1 term presidency, NOT about helping Americans.
In that he thinks the states should do what every they want, even when it impacts other states.
If you had read the letters our founding fathers wrote along with reading and understanding the constitution you would see the the founding fathers know states rights end when what they do impacts other states.
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
" Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired?"
That would be nice, sadly people don't use facts in making or supporting ideas. SO 'merits' has actually become ' what I think the bible says'.
His ideas are contrary to the constitution, Whats to force everyone to his belief, and thinks his belief should determine YOUR medical decisions.
IT's not that he his religious, it's his religious stance and wanting to violate the constitution to shove his beliefs down everyone else throat.
If an atheist was trying to get geocentric 'debate' taught in science classes, I would jump down their throught as well.
" Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral?" when the thing you think is wrong because of your belief is provable right, then yes, it's fucking important.
Now saying this applies to you, per se, but there is a very large religious movement trying to force their belief when they are contrary to fact.
Nixon was forced to end the war. He didn't want to. Listen to the tapes.
The Paul's are insane and haven't bothered to read history. No thanks. I like the fact that the air and water is cleaner. I don't want to be stuffed back into the gilded cage. I would be surprised if any of the Paul's could clearly explain why we left the gold standard.
The Paul's want to allow corporation to police themselves.
" It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping." They want to discriminate, so no, they shouldn't have access to government funded programs. Add to that they are a religious organization.
" It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. because pregnancy is better? Since it has been shown convulsively that abstinence programs do not work, what do you prose? For me, and presumable you, we tlak to our kids. We help them learn and make decisions. Many, many kids never even have the talk with there parents, much less learn how to make good decisions.
Bottoms line: YOU want to shove your religious beliefs down the public's throat.
"Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, which would be fine if they didn't get any representation or participation in union contracts. But that doesn't happen.
It also creates an environment where people are hired based on a perception of whether or not they will join an union.
Why should I pay dues and not you even though you get the benefits?
Which is why the government should also be the insurer. Then it would be cheaper. NO bonuses, no profit motivator, less over head, and a record of great medical service over all.
Did you notice how the private industry went into panic mode when Obama suggest the government also be an insurer?
The quickly went from 'The government can't do it cheaper' to 'THAT'S UNFAIR!'
The VA system is consistently rated on of the best in the world..so when someone says the government can't do it, it's laughable...or would be if it wasn't so sad.
To varying degrees that change with time. Right now, if you don't lock step with the pubs, you are effectively put in the corner. I mean, huntsman was pretty much destroyed because he had the audacity to look at the science in issues before making policy opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
he stopped living, not aging.
In his defense, the leader was quite young when he was born.
1) Japan
2) Why?
3) Why do you think people can only watch one country at a time?
ALrge armies doesn't mean good armies, and it doesn't mean 'win'.
I suspect the US has ran that scenario, as is the job of the military. I doubt it's on the table and an actual response.
Bad PR, long term damage to neighboring countries. for what? nothing we can't do with convention air forces.
Not a lot of next cheapest countries that ALSO have the infrastructure and port access.
need? no. Food, water, shelter, currently owned electronics, transportation, entertainment.
So, what need? do people needs an iPhone? xbox? new computer?
hmm, clothing would rise about 25%..maybe.
I
m seriously thinking of anything poor people NEED that would become unavailable for the short term?
OTOH, if that means all those toys get made here, then the poor people would get living wage JOBS; which they needs.
For the record, I have no problem paying 25% more for something knowing it's made in the US by a US company.
The increased wage base would increase tax revenue and now there is more tax money.
So? we would be fine in about a year.
Some reaming good would go up. Some electronics wouldn't be easy to get for a while.
We would still have food, gas, cars, electricity, all the stuff we currently have.
Hell, it might be good for us.
Now imagine Chine getting it's oil and food imports cut. It would implode.
"Experimental" is just a type of aircraft certification by the FAA.
yes,Its a certification for high-risk aircraft, or aircraft in some high risk activity.
wing.
Lie.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
we are talkign abotu a party that when they propose a bill, and Obama AGREES WITH IT, they pull their support form the bill they created.
Nice of you to selective choose 'judges'
look at all the appointees. the republican stall in filibusterer on even the most mild appointee positions. sometime appointees they had wanted under the previous administration.
It's HORRID. IT isn't normal politics. It's the worse EVERY. and it's controlled by a group that wants everyone to be forced to their own religious views. THAT ALONE should scare people away.
I"m not talking about outliers, or one or two talking stupid shit. I'm talking about a complete party stance to stop ANYTHING they come from Obama. IT's shocking in its extremest.
George Bush did propose a cap of 250K. I"m not sure why you think that is a lie.
He did so because insurance companies were, and continue to, lie about Tort.
Yes, both do it, but the pubs FUD has basically gone to unprecedented level, and as moved into media ownership..
To say the do it the same is ignorant.
I listen to many sources, as well as keep up to date on congress action and check sources. so, yes I do know what I am taking about.
Did they die en masse in the streets? No.
actually they did.
"They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out."
yeah, the depression proved that to be folly.
BTW, My elderly mother lives with me and my family. With SS we still barely get by.
SS is a great idea.
I make my own toys, so please explain how I can't do that?
DId you miss the big push from the Obama's to grow your own food?
Control what I watch? no they don't.
Christians want to tell what people who aren't part of their faith what they can do. They want to keep people ignorant, they want special rights, and they want a free ride.
"Whether you can protect yourself."
False.
"Whether you can allow smokers in your business."
gosh, they don't want people to force poison onto other people, what a travesty.
I voted for him, but i am not disappointed, because I know what he was up against. Many people seem to think the president can sweep away everything immediately.
They usually can not. And sine many of Bushes implementation after the war on terror are buried beneath a layer of management and the opposition will do anything to stop anything you want to do, regardless if they had agreed with it in the beginning, it makes it even harder.
Remember, the pubs stance is all about making Obama a 1 term presidency, NOT about helping Americans.
"The Obama administration has enlarged on."
false.
Great, I'll be sure to shoot you from 500 yards. Cause, you know, anarchy.
In that he thinks the states should do what every they want, even when it impacts other states.
If you had read the letters our founding fathers wrote along with reading and understanding the constitution you would see the the founding fathers know states rights end when what they do impacts other states.
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
" Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired?"
That would be nice, sadly people don't use facts in making or supporting ideas. SO 'merits' has actually become ' what I think the bible says'.
His ideas are contrary to the constitution, Whats to force everyone to his belief, and thinks his belief should determine YOUR medical decisions.
IT's not that he his religious, it's his religious stance and wanting to violate the constitution to shove his beliefs down everyone else throat.
If an atheist was trying to get geocentric 'debate' taught in science classes, I would jump down their throught as well.
" Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral?"
when the thing you think is wrong because of your belief is provable right, then yes, it's fucking important.
Now saying this applies to you, per se, but there is a very large religious movement trying to force their belief when they are contrary to fact.
Nixon was forced to end the war. He didn't want to. Listen to the tapes.
The Paul's are insane and haven't bothered to read history. No thanks. I like the fact that the air and water is cleaner. I don't want to be stuffed back into the gilded cage. I would be surprised if any of the Paul's could clearly explain why we left the gold standard.
The Paul's want to allow corporation to police themselves.
Lower for the rich and corporations. Not for anyone else.. you know most of us.
We are talking about a guy that would say the rich should be taxed more, and then the next day make there taxes lower.
Please tell me when there GOP was a party of small government?
Most government size increases have happened during a republican control.
The pary stance is that two peopel of the same gener shoudn't be allowed to be together.
70 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about black people.
". It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens"
so?
" It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping."
They want to discriminate, so no, they shouldn't have access to government funded programs. Add to that they are a religious organization.
" It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids.
because pregnancy is better? Since it has been shown convulsively that abstinence programs do not work, what do you prose? For me, and presumable you, we tlak to our kids. We help them learn and make decisions. Many, many kids never even have the talk with there parents, much less learn how to make good decisions.
Bottoms line: YOU want to shove your religious beliefs down the public's throat.
"Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union,
which would be fine if they didn't get any representation or participation in union contracts. But that doesn't happen.
It also creates an environment where people are hired based on a perception of whether or not they will join an union.
Why should I pay dues and not you even though you get the benefits?
Which is why the government should also be the insurer.
Then it would be cheaper. NO bonuses, no profit motivator, less over head, and a record of great medical service over all.
Did you notice how the private industry went into panic mode when Obama suggest the government also be an insurer?
The quickly went from 'The government can't do it cheaper' to 'THAT'S UNFAIR!'
The VA system is consistently rated on of the best in the world..so when someone says the government can't do it, it's laughable...or would be if it wasn't so sad.
To varying degrees that change with time. Right now, if you don't lock step with the pubs, you are effectively put in the corner. I mean, huntsman was pretty much destroyed because he had the audacity to look at the science in issues before making policy opinions.