Have you considered the possibility that "understanding the risks" and risk assessment in general is a wildly subjective issue and any one persons risk tolerance can vary wildly from another person's so that perhaps a person who deems the risks as acceptable does in fact understand them fully and simply disagrees with you without the need for any sort of cognitive dissonance which is a fancy way of saying anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusion as you is wrong and a fucking idiot;)
Keep in mind that fighting to the last man and rebuilding entire armies to continue a losing war only happens in videogames. Countries have economies to run and population to support.
Dont be fooled by the stereotypes that are sold to us all the time like "the japanese were samurais that yould never surrender", sure there were ppl like this, but not in numbers to depose the emperror and drive a nation to a mass suicide/berserk situation.
They aren't stereotypes that are sold, it's documented and factual history that is confirmed by both sides of the war. I'm not sure if you arguing out of historical ignorance or a belief that everything written, recorded and filmed (including Japanese soldier's personal stories) is propaganda but if it's the latter perhaps you should go to Japan and talk to some family members of survivors so they can set you straight on what life and culture was like in that time period. If it's simple historical ignorance lets look at the Battle of Saipan as an example:
By 7 July, the Japanese had nowhere to retreat. Saito made plans for a final suicidal banzai charge. On the fate of the remaining civilians on the island, Saito said, "There is no longer any distinction between civilians and troops. It would be better for them to join in the attack with bamboo spears than be captured." At dawn, with a group of 12 men carrying a great red flag in the lead, the remaining able-bodied troops—about 3,000 men—charged forward in the final attack. Amazingly, behind them came the wounded, with bandaged heads, crutches, and barely armed. The Japanese surged over the American front lines, engaging both Army and Marine units. The 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 105th U.S. Infantry were almost destroyed, losing 650 killed and wounded. However, the fierce resistance of these two battalions, as well as that of Headquarters Company, 105th Infantry, and elements of 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines (an artillery unit) resulted in over 4,300 Japanese killed. For their actions during the 15-hour Japanese attack, three men of the 105th Infantry were awarded the Medal of Honor—all posthumously. Numerous others fought the Japanese until they were overwhelmed by the largest Japanese Banzai attack in the Pacific War.[6]
By 16:15 on 9 July, Admiral Turner announced that Saipan was officially secured.[7] Saito——along with commanders Hirakushi and Igeta—committed suicide in a cave. Also committing suicide at the end of the battle was Vice-Admiral Chuichi Nagumo—the naval commander who led the Japanese carriers at Pearl Harbor and Midway Atoll—who had landed on Saipan to help lead the ground defense.
A U.S. Marine retrieves a living baby from a cave full of corpses. June 1944.
In the end, almost the entire garrison of troops on the island—at least 30,000—died.
And if just fighitng to the last soldier isn't bad enough:
Emperor Hirohito personally found the threat of defection of Japanese civilians disturbing.[2] Much of the community was of low caste, and there was a risk that live civilians would be surprised by generous U.S. treatment........At the end of June, Hirohito sent out an imperial order encouraging the civilians of Saipan to commit suicide.[2] The order authorized the commander of Saipan to promise civilians who died there an equal spiritual status in the afterlife with those of soldiers perishing in combat........ By the time the Marines advanced on the north tip of the island, from 8–12 July, most of the damage had been done.[2] Over 20,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife, some jumping from "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". In all, about 22,000 Japanese civilians died.
I don't know about you, but if I fought on some islands where 2 out of 3 civilians killed themselves or fought to
Would have to be a pretty big town with a lot of people. Nuclear plants are generally built in slightly rural areas, and making the decision to close a place where a good amount of your electorate works is generally not in a mayor's best interest.
You just don't get it. Your putting your detached, logical, present day hindsight (who gives a fuck when they surrender, not gonna change anything) and western values in the position of Japan and ignoring the facts of both what happened, and interviews of leaders that tell us what their plans were. One thing is very clear, before the atomic bombs they had no plans to surrender unconditionally. After the atomic bombs dropped pro-war military elements actually tried to launch a coup against the emperor in order to prevent him from recording a message to surrender and instead issue an edict to CONTINUE fighting!! History channel has some good documentaries on this, you can also check out this book, The Last Mission.
Some of your confusion might be thinking that you end a war like that when your enemy can't launch attacks anymore. That's not the case. You end the war when your enemy accepts unconditional surrender. You NEVER leave an army in the field to deal with another day, and when a country declares total war on you and your allies you don't stop fighting until your troops control every inch of their soil because otherwise neither they nor their people feel beaten and like with Germany, in a couple of decades you'll be fighting the war all over again.
I'm not sure what better way you see of forcing an unwilling enemy to surrender with minimum pain and casualties (especially to your side). "Waiting" them out means just dropping tons (literally tons and tons) of conventional ordnance in daily and nightly bombing raids until they capitulate. All the while they can be building up forces and defenses and digging in making them even more prepared, secured, and confident that they don't need to surrender because they will be able to repel an invasion so effectively
Except that nobody does that. Surveillance works with routines and normal. If they see your power drop every day at 8:30am, it's pretty clear you aren't home and they can now verify that by seeing your car(s) leave. The collected data lets them get a feel, then actual surveillance is used to go in when needed.
Clearly we need a fix for this car exploit that lets people see we're not home just by using their eyes. It's far too simple and cheap! The government needs to shut down all traffic until they find a way to obscure or anonymize all cars leaving/entering residential districts.
War is not a computer game where everyone quits once one of their teammates get knocked out because they know they can't win. In real life you can't just keep pumping out people from barracks who are willing to throw themselves on your enemies defenses until they eventually get worn down. Japan wasn't going to win the war, but they weren't defeated either, and they were betting on the fact that we were going to lack the resolve and tolerance for casualties necessary to successfully invade and force a total surrender. The casualty predictions for an invasion were enormous for both sides. The bombs were a tool of propaganda true, but it was offensive propaganda aimed at creating fear and helplessness in the Japanese command that we'd keep using the terrible weapon they couldn't defend against until they surrendered or there was nothing left. Terrible? yes. Inhumane? yes. But that describes the entirety of total war which was World War 2, and in the end those two days of destruction and lives taken saved both countries from an invasion which would have claimed orders of magnitude more. Your viewing history through the tint of the cold war. The bombs weren't a warning to future enemies, they were a tool of war that ended up avoiding an invasion with casualty estimates in the millions on our side and multiple millions on the Japanese side at the cost of ~250k. Any leader who wouldn't make that same decision after years of total war is a fool.
The trade deficit of 50 billion with only China means that the products that are imported into US are absolutely not manufactured in USA,
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from a trade deficit, but if it is possible to come to such a conclusion in a roundabout manner I might suggest simply using the definition of "import" to do the same next time;)
Boeing is heavily subsidized and helped via political power by US government, it's not standing firmly on the ground with both feet
You're right, they aren't standing on the ground at all. $2.6 billion from NASA for research that the WTO is complaining about, and Boeing is flying high with in order backlog of $329 billion. Seems like chump change compared to the 20 billion in below-market-interest loans you EU folks gave to Airbus;)
Jibes aside, are you really going to go with a "but the government helps them!" argument against a US company when comparing our industry to China's? I'm trying to come up with an analogy that would be hypocritical enough but just can't do it.
Or, as china becomes more modern and wages increase it will become more economically viable to start stabilizing and industrializing other countries that would be 'happy' to get 'low-paid' manufacturing jobs and the world-wide standard of living will continue to increase.
US MO2 (not used anymore): If you are winning a war but your ally is going to end it for you, put 2 a-bombs in planes and blast 2 entire civilian cities. For some reason you are not going to be labeled terrorist, the terrorist is the guy that blast ony 2 buildings, not 2 cities. After this, send your companies to rebuild the country and charge what you want for this rebuilding
You need to check the facts of your revisionist history. I don't know what ally was on the verge of winning the war with japan "for" us considering Hiroshima got nuked August 6th, 1945 and Russia finally decided they'd join the fight and declare war against the Japanese on August 8th, 1945. Not that I blame them for being late to that party after the weight they pulled fighting the Germans. Russia handled the Germans pretty soundly but trying to claim they were winning the war with Japan for us is 7 different colors of revisionist bullshit.
Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions?
Well, clearly in the first instance you're stealing a physical item (compact discs) and thus clearly guilty of a crime and in the 2nd instance your thrown into jail for....ummm......incoherent rambling which violates your first amendment rights?
Yes, the set of all anonymous donations probably include some that are done for some political reason, but the argument I'm disagreeing with is that none exist in that set that are simply done to help others with no personal reward/gain. If we're going to decide "feeling good because you helped someone" is a reward even if it's completely anonymous then there is no such thing as altruism as you've made up an excuse that is impossible to either prove or refute.
Lets deal with the issue at hand instead of the tangential claims you're making to distract from your original shaky argument. The only real response you've made in regard to your original claim is the restatement of:
I think you've failed on your basic logic. The issue is that praying is no less rational than talking to him through your hair dryer.
I don't see how restating your original claim without any reasoning behind it shows I'm the one failing basic logic here. The issue is that religious people believe in a omnipotent being. That's the axiom you should be arguing over, not the method of communication with said being, that's just asinine. If said being existed why wouldn't you be able to communicate with it by simply talking or thinking (which is what prayer is unless I'm mistaken)? It's fucking all powerful. And if an all powerful omnipotent being that created the universe existed what in the hell would it need with a hair dryer for communication? That's clearly requires another leap from the crazy train onto the hood of the crazy car and arguing that the two are the same makes the rest of atheists look stupid.
Well, if they "decided to boycott" then that means they paid for Sony stuff beforehand and their equally at risk as they'd still have their info in the database. Otherwise they just decided to keep on doing exactly what they were doing anyways and their the type of internet people that would already be feeling superior about it anyways;)
I'm confused how being certain there weren't WMD's in Iraq just boiled down to a "simple fact check" when defectors were screaming that there were due to their own personal agenda and Saddam had an interest in regional powers believing he had them. The whole thing was a giant cluster fuck but I don't think the media could have easily disproved the intelligence communities claims with "simple fact checks".
To borrow an analogy from Sam Harris, would Perry's appeal for divine intervention be any more insane if he asked that people communicate with God by talking in to a hairdryer? It shouldn't really be any more insane. The elephant in the room here is the idea that any kind of communication is possible with some invisible all-powerful being, yet people who believe they can talk to God would almost certainly consider Perry to be mad if he added the hairdryer to his request.
Perhaps because basic logic tells you if you accept the premise of an omnipotent all powerful being that has existed since the beginning of time and communicated with humans since their inception, it wouldn't make sense to need a recent human invention whose purpose is to dry hair to communicate with said being? Your problem is you've decided if people accept one axiom you believe to be false, that all logic and reason goes out the window completely. That's just not how people work, even people who are wrong, and espousing that idea just makes you seem ignorant, insults those people who might be wrong, and further reinforces and entrenches them in their beliefs.
And damn what the people think (most are against the war).
Saying things don't make them true: Poll for Libya Airstrikes. A plurality (47%) think the airstrikes were the right decision while only 36% disagree with them. Your falling into the same trap as the Caesars of old you're railing against, because you don't support something you automatically assume the people don't either.
And as every good conspiracy theorist knows, an unstable country full of terrorist organizations is the best place to build hundreds of miles of giant pipe filled with precious flammable liquid;)
I think there's plenty of blame to go around, that bailout plan started under GWB, and GWB did rack up a good bit of debt with the wars as well. The spending problem belongs not only to both presidents AND both parties but to the American people themselves. We all want cuts....in other people's districts/jobs.
I'm sure if Turing, Church, Godel or Wiener came (back) and asked for a complimentary game they'd be honored to give the giants a copy but every other 16 year old dickweed complaining that they deserve the game for free isn't anywhere near the giant being stood upon.
Of course to be sure I guess we could invent some sort of system whereby a person is given some amount of tokens as a rough estimation of how much their contributions are valued and said tokens could be used in order to...oh wait, that's money.
I guess I did fail to account for the case where you run over the Don Quixote of armadillos that manages to shred your tire as you run him over. But then you wouldn't have anything to wash the tire off with first anyways. My point was along the lines of tire touching is pretty infrequent (unless your doing a shitty job inflating your tires which would explain why changing a tire is something you'd think a better example then checking the pressure) so it seems like you'd be more at risk to exposure by immediately interacting with it by washing it off rather then just letting it be. How long can it last on there while remaining contagious?
As a side not, I've never actually had to change a tire on my personal vehicle. I have on other vehicles that I'm not in charge of getting tires replaced on though. I'm of the view that if your keeping them inflated, rotated and replaced correctly you generally shouldn't have to do this unless you run over something rather serious. Small punctures I can usually just re-inflate with some of that stop leak stuff for which can get me to a shop for a patch or replacement and saves the effort and use of the spare for blow-outs.
I'm slightly confused how blood on your car tires is a likely transfer case. Is it airborne, or contact based, or would you have to touch it and then rub your eyes or ingest it somehow? I don't know about you by the only time I touch my tires IS when I'm washing them down. And I guess maybe checking air-pressure. I've certainly never considered them particularly sanitary.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered the possibility that "understanding the risks" and risk assessment in general is a wildly subjective issue and any one persons risk tolerance can vary wildly from another person's so that perhaps a person who deems the risks as acceptable does in fact understand them fully and simply disagrees with you without the need for any sort of cognitive dissonance which is a fancy way of saying anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusion as you is wrong and a fucking idiot ;)
Keep in mind that fighting to the last man and rebuilding entire armies to continue a losing war only happens in videogames. Countries have economies to run and population to support. Dont be fooled by the stereotypes that are sold to us all the time like "the japanese were samurais that yould never surrender", sure there were ppl like this, but not in numbers to depose the emperror and drive a nation to a mass suicide/berserk situation.
They aren't stereotypes that are sold, it's documented and factual history that is confirmed by both sides of the war. I'm not sure if you arguing out of historical ignorance or a belief that everything written, recorded and filmed (including Japanese soldier's personal stories) is propaganda but if it's the latter perhaps you should go to Japan and talk to some family members of survivors so they can set you straight on what life and culture was like in that time period. If it's simple historical ignorance lets look at the Battle of Saipan as an example:
By 7 July, the Japanese had nowhere to retreat. Saito made plans for a final suicidal banzai charge. On the fate of the remaining civilians on the island, Saito said, "There is no longer any distinction between civilians and troops. It would be better for them to join in the attack with bamboo spears than be captured." At dawn, with a group of 12 men carrying a great red flag in the lead, the remaining able-bodied troops—about 3,000 men—charged forward in the final attack. Amazingly, behind them came the wounded, with bandaged heads, crutches, and barely armed. The Japanese surged over the American front lines, engaging both Army and Marine units. The 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 105th U.S. Infantry were almost destroyed, losing 650 killed and wounded. However, the fierce resistance of these two battalions, as well as that of Headquarters Company, 105th Infantry, and elements of 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines (an artillery unit) resulted in over 4,300 Japanese killed. For their actions during the 15-hour Japanese attack, three men of the 105th Infantry were awarded the Medal of Honor—all posthumously. Numerous others fought the Japanese until they were overwhelmed by the largest Japanese Banzai attack in the Pacific War.[6]
By 16:15 on 9 July, Admiral Turner announced that Saipan was officially secured.[7] Saito——along with commanders Hirakushi and Igeta—committed suicide in a cave. Also committing suicide at the end of the battle was Vice-Admiral Chuichi Nagumo—the naval commander who led the Japanese carriers at Pearl Harbor and Midway Atoll—who had landed on Saipan to help lead the ground defense. A U.S. Marine retrieves a living baby from a cave full of corpses. June 1944.
In the end, almost the entire garrison of troops on the island—at least 30,000—died.
And if just fighitng to the last soldier isn't bad enough:
Emperor Hirohito personally found the threat of defection of Japanese civilians disturbing.[2] Much of the community was of low caste, and there was a risk that live civilians would be surprised by generous U.S. treatment........At the end of June, Hirohito sent out an imperial order encouraging the civilians of Saipan to commit suicide.[2] The order authorized the commander of Saipan to promise civilians who died there an equal spiritual status in the afterlife with those of soldiers perishing in combat........ By the time the Marines advanced on the north tip of the island, from 8–12 July, most of the damage had been done.[2] Over 20,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife, some jumping from "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". In all, about 22,000 Japanese civilians died.
I don't know about you, but if I fought on some islands where 2 out of 3 civilians killed themselves or fought to
Would have to be a pretty big town with a lot of people. Nuclear plants are generally built in slightly rural areas, and making the decision to close a place where a good amount of your electorate works is generally not in a mayor's best interest.
You just don't get it. Your putting your detached, logical, present day hindsight (who gives a fuck when they surrender, not gonna change anything) and western values in the position of Japan and ignoring the facts of both what happened, and interviews of leaders that tell us what their plans were. One thing is very clear, before the atomic bombs they had no plans to surrender unconditionally. After the atomic bombs dropped pro-war military elements actually tried to launch a coup against the emperor in order to prevent him from recording a message to surrender and instead issue an edict to CONTINUE fighting!! History channel has some good documentaries on this, you can also check out this book, The Last Mission.
Some of your confusion might be thinking that you end a war like that when your enemy can't launch attacks anymore. That's not the case. You end the war when your enemy accepts unconditional surrender. You NEVER leave an army in the field to deal with another day, and when a country declares total war on you and your allies you don't stop fighting until your troops control every inch of their soil because otherwise neither they nor their people feel beaten and like with Germany, in a couple of decades you'll be fighting the war all over again.
I'm not sure what better way you see of forcing an unwilling enemy to surrender with minimum pain and casualties (especially to your side). "Waiting" them out means just dropping tons (literally tons and tons) of conventional ordnance in daily and nightly bombing raids until they capitulate. All the while they can be building up forces and defenses and digging in making them even more prepared, secured, and confident that they don't need to surrender because they will be able to repel an invasion so effectively
Except that nobody does that. Surveillance works with routines and normal. If they see your power drop every day at 8:30am, it's pretty clear you aren't home and they can now verify that by seeing your car(s) leave. The collected data lets them get a feel, then actual surveillance is used to go in when needed.
Clearly we need a fix for this car exploit that lets people see we're not home just by using their eyes. It's far too simple and cheap! The government needs to shut down all traffic until they find a way to obscure or anonymize all cars leaving/entering residential districts.
War is not a computer game where everyone quits once one of their teammates get knocked out because they know they can't win. In real life you can't just keep pumping out people from barracks who are willing to throw themselves on your enemies defenses until they eventually get worn down. Japan wasn't going to win the war, but they weren't defeated either, and they were betting on the fact that we were going to lack the resolve and tolerance for casualties necessary to successfully invade and force a total surrender. The casualty predictions for an invasion were enormous for both sides. The bombs were a tool of propaganda true, but it was offensive propaganda aimed at creating fear and helplessness in the Japanese command that we'd keep using the terrible weapon they couldn't defend against until they surrendered or there was nothing left. Terrible? yes. Inhumane? yes. But that describes the entirety of total war which was World War 2, and in the end those two days of destruction and lives taken saved both countries from an invasion which would have claimed orders of magnitude more. Your viewing history through the tint of the cold war. The bombs weren't a warning to future enemies, they were a tool of war that ended up avoiding an invasion with casualty estimates in the millions on our side and multiple millions on the Japanese side at the cost of ~250k. Any leader who wouldn't make that same decision after years of total war is a fool.
The trade deficit of 50 billion with only China means that the products that are imported into US are absolutely not manufactured in USA,
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from a trade deficit, but if it is possible to come to such a conclusion in a roundabout manner I might suggest simply using the definition of "import" to do the same next time ;)
Boeing is heavily subsidized and helped via political power by US government, it's not standing firmly on the ground with both feet
You're right, they aren't standing on the ground at all. $2.6 billion from NASA for research that the WTO is complaining about, and Boeing is flying high with in order backlog of $329 billion. Seems like chump change compared to the 20 billion in below-market-interest loans you EU folks gave to Airbus ;)
Jibes aside, are you really going to go with a "but the government helps them!" argument against a US company when comparing our industry to China's? I'm trying to come up with an analogy that would be hypocritical enough but just can't do it.
Or, as china becomes more modern and wages increase it will become more economically viable to start stabilizing and industrializing other countries that would be 'happy' to get 'low-paid' manufacturing jobs and the world-wide standard of living will continue to increase.
US MO2 (not used anymore): If you are winning a war but your ally is going to end it for you, put 2 a-bombs in planes and blast 2 entire civilian cities. For some reason you are not going to be labeled terrorist, the terrorist is the guy that blast ony 2 buildings, not 2 cities. After this, send your companies to rebuild the country and charge what you want for this rebuilding
You need to check the facts of your revisionist history. I don't know what ally was on the verge of winning the war with japan "for" us considering Hiroshima got nuked August 6th, 1945 and Russia finally decided they'd join the fight and declare war against the Japanese on August 8th, 1945. Not that I blame them for being late to that party after the weight they pulled fighting the Germans. Russia handled the Germans pretty soundly but trying to claim they were winning the war with Japan for us is 7 different colors of revisionist bullshit.
Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions?
Well, clearly in the first instance you're stealing a physical item (compact discs) and thus clearly guilty of a crime and in the 2nd instance your thrown into jail for....ummm......incoherent rambling which violates your first amendment rights?
Yes, the set of all anonymous donations probably include some that are done for some political reason, but the argument I'm disagreeing with is that none exist in that set that are simply done to help others with no personal reward/gain. If we're going to decide "feeling good because you helped someone" is a reward even if it's completely anonymous then there is no such thing as altruism as you've made up an excuse that is impossible to either prove or refute.
Altruism, by definition, must be 100% voluntary.
No such thing exists. There is always some social pressure or societal gain for altruism. Nothing is 100% voluntary.
What about an anonymous donation never taken credit for or mentioned to anyone else?
I think you've failed on your basic logic. The issue is that praying is no less rational than talking to him through your hair dryer.
I don't see how restating your original claim without any reasoning behind it shows I'm the one failing basic logic here. The issue is that religious people believe in a omnipotent being. That's the axiom you should be arguing over, not the method of communication with said being, that's just asinine. If said being existed why wouldn't you be able to communicate with it by simply talking or thinking (which is what prayer is unless I'm mistaken)? It's fucking all powerful. And if an all powerful omnipotent being that created the universe existed what in the hell would it need with a hair dryer for communication? That's clearly requires another leap from the crazy train onto the hood of the crazy car and arguing that the two are the same makes the rest of atheists look stupid.
Well, if they "decided to boycott" then that means they paid for Sony stuff beforehand and their equally at risk as they'd still have their info in the database. Otherwise they just decided to keep on doing exactly what they were doing anyways and their the type of internet people that would already be feeling superior about it anyways ;)
I'm confused how being certain there weren't WMD's in Iraq just boiled down to a "simple fact check" when defectors were screaming that there were due to their own personal agenda and Saddam had an interest in regional powers believing he had them. The whole thing was a giant cluster fuck but I don't think the media could have easily disproved the intelligence communities claims with "simple fact checks".
To borrow an analogy from Sam Harris, would Perry's appeal for divine intervention be any more insane if he asked that people communicate with God by talking in to a hairdryer? It shouldn't really be any more insane. The elephant in the room here is the idea that any kind of communication is possible with some invisible all-powerful being, yet people who believe they can talk to God would almost certainly consider Perry to be mad if he added the hairdryer to his request.
Perhaps because basic logic tells you if you accept the premise of an omnipotent all powerful being that has existed since the beginning of time and communicated with humans since their inception, it wouldn't make sense to need a recent human invention whose purpose is to dry hair to communicate with said being? Your problem is you've decided if people accept one axiom you believe to be false, that all logic and reason goes out the window completely. That's just not how people work, even people who are wrong, and espousing that idea just makes you seem ignorant, insults those people who might be wrong, and further reinforces and entrenches them in their beliefs.
And damn what the people think (most are against the war).
Saying things don't make them true: Poll for Libya Airstrikes. A plurality (47%) think the airstrikes were the right decision while only 36% disagree with them. Your falling into the same trap as the Caesars of old you're railing against, because you don't support something you automatically assume the people don't either.
And as every good conspiracy theorist knows, an unstable country full of terrorist organizations is the best place to build hundreds of miles of giant pipe filled with precious flammable liquid ;)
you cannot fight real bullets with lawyers not matter how many lawyers you have.
But we can keep hoping that we try it first anyways.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around, that bailout plan started under GWB, and GWB did rack up a good bit of debt with the wars as well. The spending problem belongs not only to both presidents AND both parties but to the American people themselves. We all want cuts....in other people's districts/jobs.
I'm sure if Turing, Church, Godel or Wiener came (back) and asked for a complimentary game they'd be honored to give the giants a copy but every other 16 year old dickweed complaining that they deserve the game for free isn't anywhere near the giant being stood upon.
Of course to be sure I guess we could invent some sort of system whereby a person is given some amount of tokens as a rough estimation of how much their contributions are valued and said tokens could be used in order to...oh wait, that's money.
Did not know that, thanks for the tip, I'll have to check which one I have!
I guess I did fail to account for the case where you run over the Don Quixote of armadillos that manages to shred your tire as you run him over. But then you wouldn't have anything to wash the tire off with first anyways. My point was along the lines of tire touching is pretty infrequent (unless your doing a shitty job inflating your tires which would explain why changing a tire is something you'd think a better example then checking the pressure) so it seems like you'd be more at risk to exposure by immediately interacting with it by washing it off rather then just letting it be. How long can it last on there while remaining contagious?
As a side not, I've never actually had to change a tire on my personal vehicle. I have on other vehicles that I'm not in charge of getting tires replaced on though. I'm of the view that if your keeping them inflated, rotated and replaced correctly you generally shouldn't have to do this unless you run over something rather serious. Small punctures I can usually just re-inflate with some of that stop leak stuff for which can get me to a shop for a patch or replacement and saves the effort and use of the spare for blow-outs.
I'm slightly confused how blood on your car tires is a likely transfer case. Is it airborne, or contact based, or would you have to touch it and then rub your eyes or ingest it somehow? I don't know about you by the only time I touch my tires IS when I'm washing them down. And I guess maybe checking air-pressure. I've certainly never considered them particularly sanitary.