1. Spending more money than we have is unsustainable. 2. Repeatedly allowing the spending of more money will lead to a collapse. 3. Our rating was headed for a decline regardless. And this had been stated. 4. Our credit rating declining is not a bad thing if it kicks us in the pants to get our finances straight. 5. If we don't stop over-spending, the discussion is moot. As we're going to go bankrupt.
"government, why is it so interested in using government to shove their religious/moral beliefs down my throat?"
It's not, you just keep reading liberal wrags that tell you the Tea Party is all about shoving moral laws and racism.
Having heard a call for a marriage protection act at ANY of the Tea Party rallies I've gone to. Almost are have been lower taxes, stop deficit spending, stop corruption between government and big corps, and stop invading personal liberty.
Well, the Tea Party has issues with both the TSA & Patriot Act and has been the single largest voice of opposition.
As for Christianity, gay marriage, etc.
Well there are conservatives in the Tea Party movement who advocate for such. But most of the social agenda is off the table at Tea Party events.
Mention of God, faith may be applied but seldom moral objectives beyond "being good people".
In fact, most of the view points I've encountered is "why should ANYONE need a license from the government to get married? why is the government even involved?"
Sorry, that's not guaranteed. That's akin to me saying "How about liberty from muslims."
The Constitution allows you liberty of religion, that means you can worship as you please...or not at all (atheist). That you won't be required to worship a certain way.
It does not give you the protections nor the right to eradicate any other beliefs from around you. This is a logic fallacy many atheists fall into.
No, you can be an atheist. And I can be a Jedi. But you have no right to say I can't worship as a Jedi nor express, you just have a right to say "I'm doing my own thing..."
I love how Democrats & liberals believe such crap. Well here, from the super conservative bastion Newsmax....no wait, NPR.
2009 most partisan year ever, and the Democrats voted 91% in block.
"In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent â" the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same â" 91 percent â" just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House.
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Problem with the Libertarian party is cannibas. Everytime I see a booth, every time I see anything from the Libertarian party - all they talk about is pot.
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
And that alone is the comment I hear from almost everyone I meet who has been turned off by the Libertarian party.
Most of us just don't give a damn about your pot. We couldn't care less one way or the other, and that seems to be the primary issue talked about by party members promoting the party.
Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.
1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.
1 Part - libertarian small government movement
1 Part - religious conservative
As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.
What I never understood. Is why the SCOTUS decided that the Balanced Budget Amendment was unconstitutional on the grounds that budget was the responsibility of Congress.
And yet,somehow does not see any issue with the War Powers Act which has allowed 1/2 a century of wars to go undeclared by Congress.
"And I would say a terrorist is only successful if people allow themselves to be terrorized."
I half agree. A terrorist is successful if they achieve in harming or destructing civilian life (that include individuals, buildings, businesses, etc).
They win, when people allow themselves to be terrorized.
--
You seem to be addressing my comments with a repeated fallacy. You assume that because I declare something a terrorist act, that such precludes it from also being an act of theft or murder. Not so, one can complete an act that meets multiple definitions.
"We do not need a vague word to describe actions that are already against the law." No, but a word can add clarification of an event or the addition of a crime. One might argue war is a crime. Terrorist actions specifies that an attack was focused on a civilian rather than a military/government target.
"Were the people that committed the crimes in the US on 9/11/2001 terrorists?"
Yes, for the reason above, they targeted civilian life.
"I was was under the impression that their efforts were to draw attention to or attempt to remove the US from Arab countries." That might have been their motivation for engaging in their attack.
"Was their crime terrorism? Never-what they did was illegal in so many other ways."
I can kill a person. Was it accidental homicide, justified homocide, manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder. Each carries a different weight based on the intent.
So why do you have so much difficulty with terrorism as an addition to homocide. Or should all homocides be the same?
Should a serial killer get the same jail time as an accidental homicide case?
"I'm pretty sure they were considered traitors." I would consider Britain to be the traitors. But I am pretty sure that many in Great Britain's heirarchy considered them to be both traitors and terrorists.
"I am terrorized by the way they drive swerving" Then you'd hate me as I watch Star Trek as I commute. But hey, the thing that scares me most. Is that I'm staying in the lines and maintaining traffic flow, and a lot of people are driving a lot worse.
Thank you, I usually don't thank Anonymous Cowards.
But you sir, understand exactly what I was inferring. I was hoping Slashdot readers would be able to infer correctly what I was trying to convey without requiring me to write out every single detail.
A TSA officer? I mean, they get to terrorize and then collect a pay check from Uncle Sam. How can you beat that? Granted, it's not as glorius as blowing yourself up. But hey, if you want a good cushy job in terrorism with longterm career potential, the TSA is the way to go!
Slashdot Mirror
No it didn't.
1. Spending more money than we have is unsustainable.
2. Repeatedly allowing the spending of more money will lead to a collapse.
3. Our rating was headed for a decline regardless. And this had been stated.
4. Our credit rating declining is not a bad thing if it kicks us in the pants to get our finances straight.
5. If we don't stop over-spending, the discussion is moot. As we're going to go bankrupt.
"government, why is it so interested in using government to shove their religious/moral beliefs down my throat?"
It's not, you just keep reading liberal wrags that tell you the Tea Party is all about shoving moral laws and racism.
Having heard a call for a marriage protection act at ANY of the Tea Party rallies I've gone to. Almost are have been lower taxes, stop deficit spending, stop corruption between government and big corps, and stop invading personal liberty.
Ironicaly, 1/2 of those are espoused by the OWS.
Well, the Tea Party has issues with both the TSA & Patriot Act and has been the single largest voice of opposition.
As for Christianity, gay marriage, etc.
Well there are conservatives in the Tea Party movement who advocate for such. But most of the social agenda is off the table at Tea Party events.
Mention of God, faith may be applied but seldom moral objectives beyond "being good people".
In fact, most of the view points I've encountered is "why should ANYONE need a license from the government to get married? why is the government even involved?"
Sorry, that's not guaranteed. That's akin to me saying "How about liberty from muslims."
The Constitution allows you liberty of religion, that means you can worship as you please...or not at all (atheist). That you won't be required to worship a certain way.
It does not give you the protections nor the right to eradicate any other beliefs from around you. This is a logic fallacy many atheists fall into.
No, you can be an atheist. And I can be a Jedi. But you have no right to say I can't worship as a Jedi nor express, you just have a right to say "I'm doing my own thing..."
Why?
If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in the power of prayer.
Enjoy the moment of relaxation. Or think about what bills you need to pay when you get home.
I love how Democrats & liberals believe such crap. Well here, from the super conservative bastion Newsmax....no wait, NPR.
2009 most partisan year ever, and the Democrats voted 91% in block.
"In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent â" the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same â" 91 percent â" just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095
But they're not as fragmented in their policies. And what laws they want passed.
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Seriously?
- can't make your own toys
- can't grow and sell your own food
- control what you watch, what you play
Granted their are christians on the right who want to protect marriage, and oppose a few other social issues. That's about it...
The Democrats/socialists want to control everythign else.
Like whether you have healthcare, who it's from, etc.
Whether you can protect yourself.
Whether you can allow smokers in your business.
On and on...and on...
Problem with the Libertarian party is cannibas. Everytime I see a booth, every time I see anything from the Libertarian party - all they talk about is pot.
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
And that alone is the comment I hear from almost everyone I meet who has been turned off by the Libertarian party.
Most of us just don't give a damn about your pot. We couldn't care less one way or the other, and that seems to be the primary issue talked about by party members promoting the party.
Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.
1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.
1 Part - libertarian small government movement
1 Part - religious conservative
As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.
That was a great response... :-)
What I never understood. Is why the SCOTUS decided that the Balanced Budget Amendment was unconstitutional on the grounds that budget was the responsibility of Congress.
And yet,somehow does not see any issue with the War Powers Act which has allowed 1/2 a century of wars to go undeclared by Congress.
Go figure,....hypocrisy.
Criminals are a form of terrorist in my book. But
"And I would say a terrorist is only successful if people allow themselves to be terrorized."
I half agree. A terrorist is successful if they achieve in harming or destructing civilian life (that include individuals, buildings, businesses, etc).
They win, when people allow themselves to be terrorized.
--
You seem to be addressing my comments with a repeated fallacy. You assume that because I declare something a terrorist act, that such precludes it from also being an act of theft or murder. Not so, one can complete an act that meets multiple definitions.
"We do not need a vague word to describe actions that are already against the law."
No, but a word can add clarification of an event or the addition of a crime. One might argue war is a crime. Terrorist actions specifies that an attack was focused on a civilian rather than a military/government target.
"Were the people that committed the crimes in the US on 9/11/2001 terrorists?"
Yes, for the reason above, they targeted civilian life.
"I was was under the impression that their efforts were to draw attention to or attempt to remove the US from Arab countries."
That might have been their motivation for engaging in their attack.
"Was their crime terrorism? Never-what they did was illegal in so many other ways."
I can kill a person. Was it accidental homicide, justified homocide, manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder. Each carries a different weight based on the intent.
So why do you have so much difficulty with terrorism as an addition to homocide. Or should all homocides be the same?
Should a serial killer get the same jail time as an accidental homicide case?
"I'm pretty sure they were considered traitors."
I would consider Britain to be the traitors. But I am pretty sure that many in Great Britain's heirarchy considered them to be both traitors and terrorists.
"I am terrorized by the way they drive swerving"
Then you'd hate me as I watch Star Trek as I commute. But hey, the thing that scares me most. Is that I'm staying in the lines and maintaining traffic flow, and a lot of people are driving a lot worse.
Oh, so what was Pearl Harbor? An act of war or terrorism?
One does not need to be at war with someone to become at war with someone. In fact, when most wars start, at least one party is not at war.
Thank you, I usually don't thank Anonymous Cowards.
But you sir, understand exactly what I was inferring. I was hoping Slashdot readers would be able to infer correctly what I was trying to convey without requiring me to write out every single detail.
I was half right.... ;-)
And B.C. comics can sue the auto-makers for use of the invention of the wheel.
IP leads to perpetual lawsuits.
How ironic...
Paramount sued all the related Star Trek material.And then the franchise died.
This is what executive's don't understand.
Free with purchase of a car
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/car-dealer-offers-free-ak-47-with-purchase-of-new-vehicle
You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
The truth is, 9-11 couldn't happen today. Americans will beat to death anyone who attempt to hijack a plane again.
In fact, DHS/TSA fails a huge portion of the blind tests (even when some aren't so blind).
Difference between an insurgent and a terrorist. A terrorist actively targets civilian. An insurgent engages military and government targets.
If on 9-11, they crashed a UPS cargo jet into the Pentagon, it would have been a legitimate act of partisan warfare.
Hey, no fair to leave off Flash!
MOD 6
One might say the sign of a good terrorist is 'not breathing'.
A TSA officer? I mean, they get to terrorize and then collect a pay check from Uncle Sam. How can you beat that? Granted, it's not as glorius as blowing yourself up. But hey, if you want a good cushy job in terrorism with longterm career potential, the TSA is the way to go!