There is a difference between state and non-state actions.
There is a difference non-state actors blowing up a bus, shooting up a magazine, or bombing a foot race and a state at war with another state.
The difference isn't the death or the destruction of even the individual act.
Example a soldier blowing himself up to kill other soldiers is not terrorism.
The bomb in the israeli bus the other day will do nothing militarily. The bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima was part of state actors at war with each other. There was a purpose for them. The bombing of Dresden was a specific target; chosen carefully; requiring 1000s of people to coordinate an attack. There were many competing targets and military people chose this one for a specific military reason. Degrade Nazi Germany's ability to conduct war.
We could declare "ALL WAR EQUAL TERRORISM" and we would accomplish nothing except degrade our ability to communicate
The KKK lynching people was terrorism. Funding Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was not terrorism. Did OBL use acquired skills and reputation to lead a movement against the US? Yes. But you've heard the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." When the enemy is no longer (USSR pulling out) we became enemies again. Remember OBL and others thought that the USSR was the tough-guy-on-the-block and the US to be a bunch of weak, effeminate paper tiger.
We absolutely should disband the VA. It would be far more rational to purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance for the vets (as payment for services rendered) and let them go to the hospital of their choice. The cost savings in bureaucracy, maintenance, etc... would be tremendous. It would bet that the cost of hospital and mental health care would drop and the care would improve tremendously.
And, did you ever look at what the distribution of this one percent is? Or are you conflating the 0.0001 with the 1%?
There are, what, 500 billionaires in the US? Say 640 for easy calculations.
There are 320,000,000 people in the US. Those billionaires are 1/500,000 of the population which equals what? 0.005 of one percent.
No. The combined worth of all the billionaires in the US is under 2.5 trillion (of course a good portion of their wealth is in stock and the value of said assets would plummet on the announcing of such a taking). Say the combined worth is 4 trillion. (It takes 10,000 one-hundred-millionaires to equal a trillion dollars. Don't know how you got to 11 trillion dollars unless you're including two income families making over 250,000.
So no. You would get a fraction of what you think you would get. Keep dreaming about the good life by taking other peoples money; keep dreaming that confiscatory taxing of the mega-rich will bring much of anything.
I don't think the Republican Party leadership is. Not at all. That's why so many people are pissed with them. I think that Ted Cruz, Justin Amash, Rand Paul and others are for shrinking the government - which could be why the GOPe tried to primary Amash in 2014.
Those pesky numbers you refer to include social security payments (not a handout - it was a forced input into well-meaning but still an irrationally run retirement benefit). It includes money for military bases and military personnel. It just so happens that military states are slightly more red. Not to mention the Blue States that have kicked military bases out (hence receiving less "govt" largess. It includes NASA which happens to now be red states. (They weren't in the 1960s).
It also includes farm subsidies (which should be eliminated ASAP). Interestingly these farm subsidies were put in place by Dems over Rep objections (see FDR).
So that leaves individual handouts (welfare). Interesting isn't it that the Red states that are so dependent on handouts (West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi were deep blue until a few years ago.
The best solution is to give these voters what they want. Curtail government involvement and largess. If you're confident that's what people really want and need then these redstate fools will vote out all these tea party extremists and the Democratic / Progressive Party will have the presidency and huge majorities in Congress.
This would be a win/win for you. All small-government, uneducated morons or fools (like me) would be relegated to the fringes of society and could safely be ignore.
That's why people can move. There are small Scandinavian countries that are "roll" models here in the states - so population isn't really the problem.
Maybe you missed the part where I said, "...that would work great in a country with a few million people...but not in one with 300 million. That "local safety net" concept just doesn't scale the way you think it does."
Correct. Then we agree a Federal solution isn't the correct way to go. NY can provide health care to it's citizens, in the same fashion that the UK does. Other states may chose not to. We agree to not having a Federally provided health care solution because, for among other reasons, it doesn't scale well.
Re the some places richer than others -- that's why people can and do move.
Some people cannot afford to move, or can't afford to move to where they'd like to. Will you give me the money so I can move to Beverly Hills or San Francisco and live there? Or is being too poor to move just tough shit for those who can't afford it?
Poor people move all the time. My parents moved here with nothing. I moved with nothing from one state to another. Nobody needs to pay you nothing. Sell what the sh!t you have and move.
How about you let the states decide; then people will live in the states that best suit their personality.
How about "no"? Because some of those states if left to their own devices would happily make slavery legal again. Some would make interracial marriage illegal. Some would make child prostitution perfectly legal. Too bad you can't afford to move out of that state. Or maybe that state has decided you aren't allowed to move out, period. Yay for state's rights!
The fact that states rights have been abused doesn't invalidate the concept anymore than people who abuse the right to free speech. The United States separates powers between the states and the federal government. Otherwise everything would be micromanaged from by one omnipotent bureaucracy. It's better to have the federal government focus upon international affairs and treaties and have the states do other things. Hey, isn't that what the Constitution says.
Don't like the hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans? Don't send them your hard earned money.
Assuming I was a big enough dick to deny assistance to "hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans", just how would I go about denying them my hard earned money? Does that principle also work for blacks and Hispanics? If I don't like them, can I just say, "Fuck you, you ain't gitt'n none of mah money"? If I don't like people from Louisiana or Texas, for example, how do I "not send them" my money?
-
Again, You don't seem to understand. It's not denying to particular groups. It's the liberal BS that states that Blue States are supporting Red States. It's easy to not subsidize people from other states. If your money isn't sent to the federal government and then redistributed then you would not be sending your money there. Then everyone would be happy. If people from those other states want change they will either vote the change in (in other words vote for liberal progressives) or move. Either case is a win for progressives.
And poor people can move. I did. My wife did. I moved to three states with nothing. And I mean nothing besides my backpack and a dufflebag. My parents did. I live in NYC and people move here with nothing every fu(king day of the week.
News Flash: I'm liberal. I'm probably way more liberal than you, and I'm not scared of freedom. I'm scared of those who work to take it away or deny it to others.
If liberal == progressive then you certainly are. I'm a classical liberal and want to live as a free man rather than under the watchful, loving gaze of Comrade Government.
Only if you keep expecting that a nanny state is the solution to the country's ills. Have the government do less and it will be easier to keep it in check. Have the government do everything and the most likely end result is a totalitarian state.
That's why people can move. There are small Scandinavian countries that are "roll" models here in the states - so population isn't really the problem. Re the some places richer than others -- that's why people can and do move. How about you let the states decide; then people will live in the states that best suit their personality.
Don't like the hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans? Don't send them your hard earned money. According to many liberals the blue states are supporting the red states. So stop supporting them. If you're right then the rednecks will be forced to accept the wisdom of the liberal welfare state. And if they still prefer to live in their ignorance and squalor - well that's on them isn't it?
The new American liberal: scared of freedom. We go from home of the free to home of the serfs.
OK. Say the total wealth is 2 trillion dollars and you merely confiscate 99% and leave them alive - then what? You get to run the government for 6 months.
The point of this is - even if you took everything from the greedy, disgusting, contemptible, super rich (channeling the Bern here) you still won't have the worker's paradise that you think you would have.
Yeah. If wanting limited government is crazy then I'm crazy. The federal government be limited as per the constitution. It should be much smaller: not provide for the roads, not provide any social safety net. You want a social safety net get it from local and state government. By the way I'm entirely in favor of a safety net - just not provided by the Federal government. Why? Take a look at the constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Educate yourselves instead of saying everything would be fine if the rich paid for it.
The (1/10 of one percent) rich have what at most 500 billion dollars in assets? You could kill all the undeserving rich, take all their assets - and how long would that last 2 months? Yah. Feel the Bern.
Define terrorism. Was the bombing of Berlin and Dresden terrorism? No.
Was the funding of the Viet Cong by the Russians and Chinese terrorism? If no then neither was the US funding of the Sandinistas.
Terrorism is a tactic. The deliberate targeting of civilians to make a political rather military point. That is what separates terrorism from standard run-of-the-mill war.
Sorry I prefer freedom. If you want to take heroin. Be free to but I shouldn't have to support your foolish decision.
You want to eat poorly, be 150 pounds over weight. Go ahead. But when you turn 50 and are diabetic don't expect top of the line medicine.
Free Health care is not a right. You have a right to do with your body as you feel. You do not have a right to someone else's savings because you chose to live foolishly.
Now, could we, should we, chose to help? Yes. Of course. But are we obligated to help those who chose to drink themselves to death get a new liver? No. This has nothing to do with Soylent Green. This has to do with what's right. You have a right to drink and be foolish. I don't have an obligation to fix you up after you've pissed your body away.
You obviously disagree with me. Fine. I prefer freedom to life in a government subsidized cage.
Regardless of this disagreement you are foolish and ridiculous if you call helping others to be synonymous with a government subsidy to a corporation. Keep on saying such things and you will continue the divide that will lead this country to civil war. Stop it. Be precise with your terms. Giving aid to those less fortunate is not a subsidy to business.
Ok. We will have to agree to disagree. A subsidy is a good or service given to a business. If we as a populace decide that everyone should have a particular benefit (say chocolate ice cream with bacon chips once a week) it is not the responsibility of companies to provide said benefit. IF their employees cannot afford said benefit (say they would rather spend their money on something foolish like vanilla ice cream with butterscotch sauce) then it is not a subsidy to the company if we (as a society) provide the chocolate ice cream to those people who did not buy it (for whatever reason).
Feel free to substitute health care for chocolate ice cream and internet/cable for vanilla ice cream.
No. Kent State was almost entirely an issue of unprofessionalism. Unprofessionalism in part of the national guardsmen who shot their weapons and unprofessionalism of their commanders.
We're facing a much different situation here. It's not simply a case of "have weapons" or "not have weapons." We're talking about whys and wherefores here. The guardsmen are not robots (and that's why I think we're going to have more and more non-human guardsmen. One they won't panic, and two they will follow immoral orders). And that is the key issue:
The guardsmen at Kent State were not ordered to fire into the crowd. They panicked. I don't think that guardsmen (especially a far more professional guard) will fire into a crowd of people who are not causing physical harm to property (unlike the BLM movement) and are not threatening their neighbors.
I don't think the government should help everybody with their health care. I think that would be foolish in a whole slew of ways. What was a non sequitur was saying that businesses are being supported (subsidized) by the govt because they don't provide said insurance to their employees, or because they pay their employees less than what you think is right.
Yes. I misspoke. If it gets to active civil war I think a large part of the military will desert/retire/ join forces with their brothers and fathers who are standing up to tyranny.
I do not think military will be an active part of subverting the constitution. I think they will refuse to follow orders. I know too many people who are/were active. The members of the military that I know of (yes a very small percentage of the total) are very respectful and mindful of the constitution and balance of powers; many have complete contempt for the portion of the populace that want to turn this country into a European Nanny State in which people are subjects of the government as opposed to citizens of.
You know the type. The type that votes for and supports the Nancy Pelosi "you have to pass the bill to know what's inside the bill."
I'm saying that the fact that whether we help these people or not - is not the same as subsidizing business.
I'm referring to the lack of clarity in your thought and understanding of the situation. Whether or not we should help people is one thing, but helping people is not the same as providing subsidies to a corporation.
No. I think you're mistaken here. Purposely mistaken. One the National Guard was far less professional in 1970 then it is now. And second we're talking about civil war - active combat and not a few scared, unprepared kids panicking under pressure and lack of professional leadership.
White guilt!? Have you been that fu^^king brainwashed?
You're reading in race where it needn't be. This isn't a William Burroughs' Tarzan story.
Sully has an advantage because he know the enemy. Knows how to fight them, The Na'vi obviously don't. Without Sully they would have been massacred. It has nothing to do with their courage. Their tactics and personal tendencies (charge) are from a pre-industrial (pre-rapid-fire) age. Sully knew what was going to be done and how to stop it. The Na'vi had no clue about missiles or bombs. Again, they were still in the wrestle, spear and bow and arrow age. (That's not insulting. That's the story line.) How would they be able to conceive what a nuclear bomb is? Or in their case a daisycutter.
Re Toruk Makto - sometimes people get stuck on can't. The Na'vi clan which Sully joined was demoralized and did not realize how much time was against them - and how this was an extinction level event. (As opposed to localized tragedy). You see it all the time in businesses which is why outside consultants are sometimes brought it. If you live in NYC (or other urban metropolis where neighborhoods gentrify) think of all the times people who've lived there did not see how the neighborhood was changing right in front of their blind eyes. And afterwards they say - I would be a millionaire if I bought back then. Sully needed a way to be paid attention to. What plot device would you have used?
No. If sea levels rise they rise. Good bye to most places below sea level. It would be like the moronic effort to save New Orleans over the last 80 years. It's the Mississippi fu(king Delta. You ain't gonna stop the river for very long with dikes.
I would be willing to bet you that the rise in sea level is going to be far less that you imagine it to be. If you think it's important than start voting for Libertarian and Free Market candidates who feel that the government should not subsidize flood insurance.
Not in the slightest. Minimum wage was never meant to support a family. It was meant to say that below this amount is exploitation. (Whether true or not is a different story and a different debate.)
It is not up to a company to give a "living wage." You give money for services rendered. I'm fixing up my house. I barter and negotiate for services, same as Walmart.
You hurt your argument when you change the definition of subsidy to suit your whims. The more you do this the less you're able to speak to people with opposing views as you become more and more extreme (and less precise in your language and thinking).
The gas tax is put into a state and federal slush fund. If the gas tax was used only for the highways there would be a huge surplus.
On avg the state governments put about $0.30/gallon tax and the federal government about $0.50/ gallon
The US uses over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per year (134 billion in 2013). Thats about 100 billion in gas tax per year.
Fixing the bridges is about 140 billion according to CNN and that figure is probably exaggerated for effect.
And of course the $100 billion in revenue mentioned above does not count tolls.
Here's an idea guys: have the gas tax pay for the roads and bridges and if there is some extra use it buy land to add to national parks. Don't add the funds to a general slush fund.
You must have contempt for the people in the military to think that they would fire on their brothers and sisters who simply want the constitution to be upheld.
Slashdot Mirror
Defining terms needs to be done.
There is a difference between state and non-state actions.
There is a difference non-state actors blowing up a bus, shooting up a magazine, or bombing a foot race and a state at war with another state.
The difference isn't the death or the destruction of even the individual act.
Example a soldier blowing himself up to kill other soldiers is not terrorism.
The bomb in the israeli bus the other day will do nothing militarily. The bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima was part of state actors at war with each other. There was a purpose for them. The bombing of Dresden was a specific target; chosen carefully; requiring 1000s of people to coordinate an attack. There were many competing targets and military people chose this one for a specific military reason. Degrade Nazi Germany's ability to conduct war.
We could declare "ALL WAR EQUAL TERRORISM" and we would accomplish nothing except degrade our ability to communicate
The KKK lynching people was terrorism. Funding Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was not terrorism. Did OBL use acquired skills and reputation to lead a movement against the US? Yes. But you've heard the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." When the enemy is no longer (USSR pulling out) we became enemies again. Remember OBL and others thought that the USSR was the tough-guy-on-the-block and the US to be a bunch of weak, effeminate paper tiger.
We absolutely should disband the VA. It would be far more rational to purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance for the vets (as payment for services rendered) and let them go to the hospital of their choice. The cost savings in bureaucracy, maintenance, etc... would be tremendous. It would bet that the cost of hospital and mental health care would drop and the care would improve tremendously.
So yes. Disband the VA.
And, did you ever look at what the distribution of this one percent is? Or are you conflating the 0.0001 with the 1%?
There are, what, 500 billionaires in the US? Say 640 for easy calculations.
There are 320,000,000 people in the US. Those billionaires are 1/500,000 of the population which equals what? 0.005 of one percent.
No. The combined worth of all the billionaires in the US is under 2.5 trillion (of course a good portion of their wealth is in stock and the value of said assets would plummet on the announcing of such a taking). Say the combined worth is 4 trillion. (It takes 10,000 one-hundred-millionaires to equal a trillion dollars. Don't know how you got to 11 trillion dollars unless you're including two income families making over 250,000.
So no. You would get a fraction of what you think you would get. Keep dreaming about the good life by taking other peoples money; keep dreaming that confiscatory taxing of the mega-rich will bring much of anything.
I don't think the Republican Party leadership is. Not at all. That's why so many people are pissed with them. I think that Ted Cruz, Justin Amash, Rand Paul and others are for shrinking the government - which could be why the GOPe tried to primary Amash in 2014.
Those pesky numbers you refer to include social security payments (not a handout - it was a forced input into well-meaning but still an irrationally run retirement benefit). It includes money for military bases and military personnel. It just so happens that military states are slightly more red. Not to mention the Blue States that have kicked military bases out (hence receiving less "govt" largess. It includes NASA which happens to now be red states. (They weren't in the 1960s).
It also includes farm subsidies (which should be eliminated ASAP). Interestingly these farm subsidies were put in place by Dems over Rep objections (see FDR).
So that leaves individual handouts (welfare). Interesting isn't it that the Red states that are so dependent on handouts (West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi were deep blue until a few years ago.
The best solution is to give these voters what they want. Curtail government involvement and largess. If you're confident that's what people really want and need then these redstate fools will vote out all these tea party extremists and the Democratic / Progressive Party will have the presidency and huge majorities in Congress.
This would be a win/win for you. All small-government, uneducated morons or fools (like me) would be relegated to the fringes of society and could safely be ignore.
That's why people can move. There are small Scandinavian countries that are "roll" models here in the states - so population isn't really the problem.
Maybe you missed the part where I said, "...that would work great in a country with a few million people...but not in one with 300 million. That "local safety net" concept just doesn't scale the way you think it does."
Correct. Then we agree a Federal solution isn't the correct way to go. NY can provide health care to it's citizens, in the same fashion that the UK does. Other states may chose not to. We agree to not having a Federally provided health care solution because, for among other reasons, it doesn't scale well.
Re the some places richer than others -- that's why people can and do move.
Some people cannot afford to move, or can't afford to move to where they'd like to. Will you give me the money so I can move to Beverly Hills or San Francisco and live there? Or is being too poor to move just tough shit for those who can't afford it?
Poor people move all the time. My parents moved here with nothing. I moved with nothing from one state to another. Nobody needs to pay you nothing. Sell what the sh!t you have and move.
How about you let the states decide; then people will live in the states that best suit their personality.
How about "no"? Because some of those states if left to their own devices would happily make slavery legal again. Some would make interracial marriage illegal. Some would make child prostitution perfectly legal. Too bad you can't afford to move out of that state. Or maybe that state has decided you aren't allowed to move out, period. Yay for state's rights!
The fact that states rights have been abused doesn't invalidate the concept anymore than people who abuse the right to free speech. The United States separates powers between the states and the federal government. Otherwise everything would be micromanaged from by one omnipotent bureaucracy. It's better to have the federal government focus upon international affairs and treaties and have the states do other things. Hey, isn't that what the Constitution says.
Don't like the hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans? Don't send them your hard earned money.
Assuming I was a big enough dick to deny assistance to "hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans", just how would I go about denying them my hard earned money? Does that principle also work for blacks and Hispanics? If I don't like them, can I just say, "Fuck you, you ain't gitt'n none of mah money"? If I don't like people from Louisiana or Texas, for example, how do I "not send them" my money?
-
Again, You don't seem to understand. It's not denying to particular groups. It's the liberal BS that states that Blue States are supporting Red States. It's easy to not subsidize people from other states. If your money isn't sent to the federal government and then redistributed then you would not be sending your money there. Then everyone would be happy. If people from those other states want change they will either vote the change in (in other words vote for liberal progressives) or move. Either case is a win for progressives.
And poor people can move. I did. My wife did. I moved to three states with nothing. And I mean nothing besides my backpack and a dufflebag. My parents did. I live in NYC and people move here with nothing every fu(king day of the week.
News Flash: I'm liberal. I'm probably way more liberal than you, and I'm not scared of freedom. I'm scared of those who work to take it away or deny it to others.
If liberal == progressive then you certainly are. I'm a classical liberal and want to live as a free man rather than under the watchful, loving gaze of Comrade Government.
Only if you keep expecting that a nanny state is the solution to the country's ills. Have the government do less and it will be easier to keep it in check. Have the government do everything and the most likely end result is a totalitarian state.
That's why people can move. There are small Scandinavian countries that are "roll" models here in the states - so population isn't really the problem. Re the some places richer than others -- that's why people can and do move. How about you let the states decide; then people will live in the states that best suit their personality.
Don't like the hillbillies and rednecks and other ignorant republicans? Don't send them your hard earned money. According to many liberals the blue states are supporting the red states. So stop supporting them. If you're right then the rednecks will be forced to accept the wisdom of the liberal welfare state. And if they still prefer to live in their ignorance and squalor - well that's on them isn't it?
The new American liberal: scared of freedom. We go from home of the free to home of the serfs.
OK. Say the total wealth is 2 trillion dollars and you merely confiscate 99% and leave them alive - then what? You get to run the government for 6 months.
The point of this is - even if you took everything from the greedy, disgusting, contemptible, super rich (channeling the Bern here) you still won't have the worker's paradise that you think you would have.
Yeah. If wanting limited government is crazy then I'm crazy. The federal government be limited as per the constitution. It should be much smaller: not provide for the roads, not provide any social safety net. You want a social safety net get it from local and state government. By the way I'm entirely in favor of a safety net - just not provided by the Federal government. Why? Take a look at the constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Educate yourselves instead of saying everything would be fine if the rich paid for it.
The (1/10 of one percent) rich have what at most 500 billion dollars in assets? You could kill all the undeserving rich, take all their assets - and how long would that last 2 months? Yah. Feel the Bern.
Define terrorism. Was the bombing of Berlin and Dresden terrorism? No.
Was the funding of the Viet Cong by the Russians and Chinese terrorism? If no then neither was the US funding of the Sandinistas.
Terrorism is a tactic. The deliberate targeting of civilians to make a political rather military point. That is what separates terrorism from standard run-of-the-mill war.
Define your terms please.
Sorry I prefer freedom. If you want to take heroin. Be free to but I shouldn't have to support your foolish decision.
You want to eat poorly, be 150 pounds over weight. Go ahead. But when you turn 50 and are diabetic don't expect top of the line medicine.
Free Health care is not a right. You have a right to do with your body as you feel. You do not have a right to someone else's savings because you chose to live foolishly.
Now, could we, should we, chose to help? Yes. Of course. But are we obligated to help those who chose to drink themselves to death get a new liver? No. This has nothing to do with Soylent Green. This has to do with what's right. You have a right to drink and be foolish. I don't have an obligation to fix you up after you've pissed your body away.
You obviously disagree with me. Fine. I prefer freedom to life in a government subsidized cage.
Regardless of this disagreement you are foolish and ridiculous if you call helping others to be synonymous with a government subsidy to a corporation. Keep on saying such things and you will continue the divide that will lead this country to civil war. Stop it. Be precise with your terms. Giving aid to those less fortunate is not a subsidy to business.
Ok. We will have to agree to disagree. A subsidy is a good or service given to a business. If we as a populace decide that everyone should have a particular benefit (say chocolate ice cream with bacon chips once a week) it is not the responsibility of companies to provide said benefit. IF their employees cannot afford said benefit (say they would rather spend their money on something foolish like vanilla ice cream with butterscotch sauce) then it is not a subsidy to the company if we (as a society) provide the chocolate ice cream to those people who did not buy it (for whatever reason).
Feel free to substitute health care for chocolate ice cream and internet/cable for vanilla ice cream.
No. Kent State was almost entirely an issue of unprofessionalism. Unprofessionalism in part of the national guardsmen who shot their weapons and unprofessionalism of their commanders.
We're facing a much different situation here. It's not simply a case of "have weapons" or "not have weapons." We're talking about whys and wherefores here. The guardsmen are not robots (and that's why I think we're going to have more and more non-human guardsmen. One they won't panic, and two they will follow immoral orders). And that is the key issue: The guardsmen at Kent State were not ordered to fire into the crowd. They panicked. I don't think that guardsmen (especially a far more professional guard) will fire into a crowd of people who are not causing physical harm to property (unlike the BLM movement) and are not threatening their neighbors.
I don't think the government should help everybody with their health care. I think that would be foolish in a whole slew of ways. What was a non sequitur was saying that businesses are being supported (subsidized) by the govt because they don't provide said insurance to their employees, or because they pay their employees less than what you think is right.
Yes. I misspoke. If it gets to active civil war I think a large part of the military will desert/retire/ join forces with their brothers and fathers who are standing up to tyranny.
I do not think military will be an active part of subverting the constitution. I think they will refuse to follow orders. I know too many people who are/were active. The members of the military that I know of (yes a very small percentage of the total) are very respectful and mindful of the constitution and balance of powers; many have complete contempt for the portion of the populace that want to turn this country into a European Nanny State in which people are subjects of the government as opposed to citizens of.
You know the type. The type that votes for and supports the Nancy Pelosi "you have to pass the bill to know what's inside the bill."
That was a complete non sequitur.
I'm saying that the fact that whether we help these people or not - is not the same as subsidizing business.
I'm referring to the lack of clarity in your thought and understanding of the situation. Whether or not we should help people is one thing, but helping people is not the same as providing subsidies to a corporation.
No. I think you're mistaken here. Purposely mistaken. One the National Guard was far less professional in 1970 then it is now. And second we're talking about civil war - active combat and not a few scared, unprepared kids panicking under pressure and lack of professional leadership.
White guilt!? Have you been that fu^^king brainwashed?
You're reading in race where it needn't be. This isn't a William Burroughs' Tarzan story.
Sully has an advantage because he know the enemy. Knows how to fight them, The Na'vi obviously don't. Without Sully they would have been massacred. It has nothing to do with their courage. Their tactics and personal tendencies (charge) are from a pre-industrial (pre-rapid-fire) age. Sully knew what was going to be done and how to stop it. The Na'vi had no clue about missiles or bombs. Again, they were still in the wrestle, spear and bow and arrow age. (That's not insulting. That's the story line.) How would they be able to conceive what a nuclear bomb is? Or in their case a daisycutter.
Re Toruk Makto - sometimes people get stuck on can't. The Na'vi clan which Sully joined was demoralized and did not realize how much time was against them - and how this was an extinction level event. (As opposed to localized tragedy). You see it all the time in businesses which is why outside consultants are sometimes brought it. If you live in NYC (or other urban metropolis where neighborhoods gentrify) think of all the times people who've lived there did not see how the neighborhood was changing right in front of their blind eyes. And afterwards they say - I would be a millionaire if I bought back then. Sully needed a way to be paid attention to. What plot device would you have used?
No. If sea levels rise they rise. Good bye to most places below sea level. It would be like the moronic effort to save New Orleans over the last 80 years. It's the Mississippi fu(king Delta. You ain't gonna stop the river for very long with dikes.
I would be willing to bet you that the rise in sea level is going to be far less that you imagine it to be. If you think it's important than start voting for Libertarian and Free Market candidates who feel that the government should not subsidize flood insurance.
Not in the slightest. Minimum wage was never meant to support a family. It was meant to say that below this amount is exploitation. (Whether true or not is a different story and a different debate.)
It is not up to a company to give a "living wage." You give money for services rendered. I'm fixing up my house. I barter and negotiate for services, same as Walmart.
You hurt your argument when you change the definition of subsidy to suit your whims. The more you do this the less you're able to speak to people with opposing views as you become more and more extreme (and less precise in your language and thinking).
The gas tax is put into a state and federal slush fund. If the gas tax was used only for the highways there would be a huge surplus.
On avg the state governments put about $0.30/gallon tax and the federal government about $0.50/ gallon
The US uses over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per year (134 billion in 2013). Thats about 100 billion in gas tax per year.
Fixing the bridges is about 140 billion according to CNN and that figure is probably exaggerated for effect.
And of course the $100 billion in revenue mentioned above does not count tolls.
Here's an idea guys: have the gas tax pay for the roads and bridges and if there is some extra use it buy land to add to national parks. Don't add the funds to a general slush fund.
walmart isn't a private company. Is it owned by the government? No. Does it survives only via government largess? No.
As far as I can tell Walmart scaled pretty damn well.
You must have contempt for the people in the military to think that they would fire on their brothers and sisters who simply want the constitution to be upheld.