Just finished watching a new Frontline on PBS called "Loosing Iraq". Anyway, according to that program the war's total cost was around $2T. And it was a complete failed policy from the get-go.
As far as I'm concerned MS can shitcan the while RT thing. Ive had two Surface RT tablets in the past 11 months. The first new one would constantly freeze up which was real annoying especially after I had typed a relatively long post on a website only to have to restart the tablet and thus loose everything I had typed. Then the battery died on it after 9 months. MS replaced it with (I'm assuming) a new RT Surface about 8 weeks ago and even though the battery hasn't died yet the second one constantly freezes up just like the first one did. The only reason I keep the Surface is the supposedly added synchronization with MS products. If I had the dough I'd dump the Surface and get a different (and cheaper) tablet. A family member recently bought an IPad Mini at Target for $399 plus received a $100 gift card from the store. If it weren't for the small size of the Mini I'd consider getting one. Either way I'm finished with the MS RT. And there is no way I'd even consider spending a grand on a Surface Pro.
They don't have to, all taxpayers do it for them. How? Via the state and federal tax subsidies afforded to religious institutions that no other "non-profit" group is afforded. Church properties are tax exempt. Clergy benefits like housing subsidies are tax free. There is well over $141 billion in property assists owned by religious institutions and they receive over $22 billion in untaxed subsidies. While the same organizations receive state and local government services like garbage collection, water, police and fire services at no cost.
That's a mischaracterization of the concept of "insurance". Insurance (from its very inception) was an industry of SHARING RISK. There was (and still is) a built in assumption that some insured were more risk than others. But the risks are shared nonetheless. For example you have a sedentary smoker and another person who is a long distance runner. The assumption is that the smoker will have a shorter lifespan than the runner. Out of the blue the runner has a heart attack and suffers a debilitating stroke. The smoker has no major health issues (at the time). The idea of insurance is to protect against risk and the predictability of risk is merely statistical not actual. My cousin was a runner and had a heart attack in his late 20's. My father was a smoker and worked in a factory. He lived into his late seventies. My point being, ultimately mortality (or bad health) is not necessarily dependent upon lifestyles.
So when you buy insurance the whole idea is that you are in fact sharing risk with complete strangers because futures are not predictable. Now... you might argue from a statistical standpoint that certain lifestyles are more likely to contribute to ill health. That's only in the aggregate, not individually. You cannot predict for any one individual.
Insurance is NOT an arrangement where you are charged for your individual risk or advanced perceived need. The risk for everyone is spread among everyone. That's the whole idea of insurance.
All research and development companies ultimately become public. They can't sustain growth and competition without investor funds. Elon Musk exhausted his own personal investment and nearly went belly up had it not been his award of a government contract. Ultimately though his company and his competitors will have to go public to compete. Thus your private company assertion doesn't really hold water as those companies will eventually become dependent upon investors and quarterly returns. Also I think it's premature to assume a cottage industry dependent upon the 1%. Most of them have more terrestrial concerns such as making more money and investing in space tourism is not only very expensive but also dangerous. Liability alone will discourage many of those who could afford it to avoid it.
Al Qaeda targeted the "centers of democracy". The military-industrial complex (rather impotently), the seat of government (which was completely unsuccessful) and capitalism (World Trade Center). The WTC being the most spectacular of course. Regardless, they were happy to inflict any damage. It's quite a leap to suggest they could be considered freedom fighters. If... the portrayal of freedom fighter were applicable they should've waged their jihad against the capitalist sympathizers running the governments of their native countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. From a strategic viewpoint, it's much easier and less expensive to wage an insurgency against less powerful governments to enact change. By attacking the U.S. they virtually ensured the eventual decapitation of their own movement. Freedom fighters?
Problem with that argument... private enterprise operates on PROFIT. Private enterprise has taken 40 years to even get to a point it is considering manned space flight. Space exploration is too costly and returns are doubtful especially on the quarterly schedule that business operates on. How does private industry justify for investors the expense when a payoff may not even be realized, fortunes lost or it takes another generation to see any profit? Investors won't go for that. The ONLY entity capable of consistent investment (including experimental failures) in such endeavors is the taxing power of government. I just don't see Musk, et. al. Competing in any realistic way with the Chinese government. Who is planning a manned settlement on the moon. Anyone who thinks that the be all and end all is private enterprise is not being realistic when the power of government as a competitor is factored in. In fact, the only reason the U.S. even had a space program is because of the funding and taxing power of government. Not one single private corporation at the time (or even now) had or has the financial resources to develop the technology required for manned exploration. Even Musk and other so-called private enterprises looking at space development is dependent in large part upon government contracts.
Even if your assertion were correct, all that science is in large part superfluous if not geared toward populating other celestial bodies. Which by the way was essentially abandoned 40 years ago because American politicians were (and still do) view manned space exploration as a waste of time and resources. It is only now, because of the costs involved is there ANY public or private interest in manned space flight in the U.S. And that may only be because of the strategic implications because China has recently announced plans to go to the moon. Which their government can afford a large concerted effort to do so. The west gave up manned space flight and for 40 years languished in a poverty stricken robotics mindset. Ultimately though, it all pretty much hyperbole if the ultimate goal is not manned space flight and now the richest, largest communist country on the planet understands the benefits of manned exploration and intends to tackle the technologies necessary for manned exploration. In other words, the west shot their load 40 years ago and don't have the stamina for a second liaison on the moon or anywhere else.
That's all part of the cost of doing business... yes? I see little reason why commerce and communication over the web should be any different than commerce and communication via land line telecommunications. It may be correct that the web was envisioned as an "open" communication system but I see no reason whatsoever that the same privacy expectations that use to be applicable to land line communications should not apply to the web. In my opinion, there should be a presumption of privacy in ANY form of communication or doing business. And that those who operate various communication pathways to obtain participants explicit permission to share their information. Now, one may argue that the web as it exists today is completely open and public. Thus, people who utilize such pathways are implicitly granting permission to share their information. However, that's ass backwards from pre-internet expectations. Prior to the web, people had an expectation of privacy and there is no reason the web should be any different. Businesses are explicitly on the web to further their markets and WANT the exposure. But private individuals should have to explicitly grant permission to any third party for release of private and personal information including email, business transactions with specific companies, etc. Including the inability of companies to share information with third parties, affiliates, business partners, etc. Every single thing a person engages in on the web should by statute be considered private and one should not have to give up their privacy to communicate or transact business on the web... period.
Well, since we can no longer impeach King George II, I suppose we should just strip him of his presidential perks, and toss him in jail along with, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. for getting us involved in an unjustified and misleading 13 year war in which thousands have been killed or maimed.
The let slavery slide for nearly a century. The founding fathers who were opposed to slavery from the getgo caved into the financial interests of the plantation owners and other slave owners.
Can't say I whole-heartedly disagree. There is considerable truth to your assertions. And I'd agree the political parties will ultimately ruin this country. Given that, Libertarianism is too extreme overall. With its overemphasis on "self-interest" at the expense of other social requirements such as highway, energy, fresh water, waste disposal, clean air, infrastructure and maintenance, oversight of interstate commerce, law enforcement and judicial maintenance, etc. etc. you can't run a civil society without an arbitrator to settle disputes, coordinate infrastructure development and all the civil things a large society requires. Problem being, libertarians have no better defined interpretation of "minimalist" government and just how far individual liberties should extend before society in general is undermined. They seem to believe the "smaller the better". But that minimalist position fails to address all the social issues that seem to arise in a large and complex society that requires an arbiter. And history has demonstrated that when individuals are left to their own devises, serving merely their own self-interest, well... history speaks for itself.
Behold... the archangel of mendacity. The tenor of the trivial. The narrator of narcissism. Who speaks with the same twisted tongue as the evil doers he accuses. Behold... and get on thy knees in praise and pray his wisdom pours upon us in abundance. AMEN
Not unusual commentary for a neo-conservative drone. The facts are of course applicable to the Republican party and more specifically, Boehner, et. al. in Congress as well. No one in D.C. can legitimately claim moral, political, economic or ideological superiority. They've all joisted over their own self-interest. I suppose it isn't hypocritical for King George (Bush) II to go bike riding with the impaired GIs he sent off to settle Bush's War. Or the superbly naïve King strutting on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring the Iraq war was won. Smirking his infamous smirk the entire time. Talk about all the traits attributed to Obama in your cited article. Bush had them and more.
Skin color can be changed. Take for example Michael Jackson. Even though it is reported that he had a skin disease, it was also reported that he sought special treatments to lighten his skin color. Also, many Caucasians seek exposure to the sun to darken their skin color. Now, if you're referring to "race" that might be a different story. But skin color can change.
Concur. But how else is one able to maintain the world's largest military-industrial machine that everyone else in the world wants to act as global constable on patrol? (sarcasm)
And that's why American politics and government is so tucked up. People want to vote for who they think the favorite will be not the best qualified. Which reinforces my assertion that if change is wanted it is not a wasted vote to vote for the best qualified as opposed to a projected winner. Eventually, when voters grasp that things will change. But change will never happen if voters aren't willing to take a chance on someone else. An taking a chance requires the act of voting for that third party candidate.
Illogical; based upon a false assumption.
Assumption being that election results are premised upon everyone voting for strictly one of two obvious choices.
Based upon that assumption it precludes the possibility of voters electing a third party candidate at some point. History does not determine the future. One does not know in advance what the outcome will be. Your assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If... voters were left to their own devises a reasonable chance exists that neither one of the obvious choices will be elected. When voters vote for the sole purpose of being on the winning side and not based upon candidate views, ideas, etc. then they are undermining the very idea of democratic elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Yah... like Elysium... all the super rich will live in space and the Earth becomes a low income "regular people" ghetto.
Just finished watching a new Frontline on PBS called "Loosing Iraq". Anyway, according to that program the war's total cost was around $2T. And it was a complete failed policy from the get-go.
As far as I'm concerned MS can shitcan the while RT thing. Ive had two Surface RT tablets in the past 11 months. The first new one would constantly freeze up which was real annoying especially after I had typed a relatively long post on a website only to have to restart the tablet and thus loose everything I had typed. Then the battery died on it after 9 months. MS replaced it with (I'm assuming) a new RT Surface about 8 weeks ago and even though the battery hasn't died yet the second one constantly freezes up just like the first one did. The only reason I keep the Surface is the supposedly added synchronization with MS products. If I had the dough I'd dump the Surface and get a different (and cheaper) tablet. A family member recently bought an IPad Mini at Target for $399 plus received a $100 gift card from the store. If it weren't for the small size of the Mini I'd consider getting one. Either way I'm finished with the MS RT. And there is no way I'd even consider spending a grand on a Surface Pro.
DITTO.
They don't have to, all taxpayers do it for them. How? Via the state and federal tax subsidies afforded to religious institutions that no other "non-profit" group is afforded. Church properties are tax exempt. Clergy benefits like housing subsidies are tax free. There is well over $141 billion in property assists owned by religious institutions and they receive over $22 billion in untaxed subsidies. While the same organizations receive state and local government services like garbage collection, water, police and fire services at no cost.
That's a mischaracterization of the concept of "insurance". Insurance (from its very inception) was an industry of SHARING RISK. There was (and still is) a built in assumption that some insured were more risk than others. But the risks are shared nonetheless. For example you have a sedentary smoker and another person who is a long distance runner. The assumption is that the smoker will have a shorter lifespan than the runner. Out of the blue the runner has a heart attack and suffers a debilitating stroke. The smoker has no major health issues (at the time). The idea of insurance is to protect against risk and the predictability of risk is merely statistical not actual. My cousin was a runner and had a heart attack in his late 20's. My father was a smoker and worked in a factory. He lived into his late seventies. My point being, ultimately mortality (or bad health) is not necessarily dependent upon lifestyles. So when you buy insurance the whole idea is that you are in fact sharing risk with complete strangers because futures are not predictable. Now... you might argue from a statistical standpoint that certain lifestyles are more likely to contribute to ill health. That's only in the aggregate, not individually. You cannot predict for any one individual. Insurance is NOT an arrangement where you are charged for your individual risk or advanced perceived need. The risk for everyone is spread among everyone. That's the whole idea of insurance.
All research and development companies ultimately become public. They can't sustain growth and competition without investor funds. Elon Musk exhausted his own personal investment and nearly went belly up had it not been his award of a government contract. Ultimately though his company and his competitors will have to go public to compete. Thus your private company assertion doesn't really hold water as those companies will eventually become dependent upon investors and quarterly returns. Also I think it's premature to assume a cottage industry dependent upon the 1%. Most of them have more terrestrial concerns such as making more money and investing in space tourism is not only very expensive but also dangerous. Liability alone will discourage many of those who could afford it to avoid it.
Japan ranks at the top of the list for abusers.
Al Qaeda targeted the "centers of democracy". The military-industrial complex (rather impotently), the seat of government (which was completely unsuccessful) and capitalism (World Trade Center). The WTC being the most spectacular of course. Regardless, they were happy to inflict any damage. It's quite a leap to suggest they could be considered freedom fighters. If... the portrayal of freedom fighter were applicable they should've waged their jihad against the capitalist sympathizers running the governments of their native countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. From a strategic viewpoint, it's much easier and less expensive to wage an insurgency against less powerful governments to enact change. By attacking the U.S. they virtually ensured the eventual decapitation of their own movement. Freedom fighters?
Problem with that argument... private enterprise operates on PROFIT. Private enterprise has taken 40 years to even get to a point it is considering manned space flight. Space exploration is too costly and returns are doubtful especially on the quarterly schedule that business operates on. How does private industry justify for investors the expense when a payoff may not even be realized, fortunes lost or it takes another generation to see any profit? Investors won't go for that. The ONLY entity capable of consistent investment (including experimental failures) in such endeavors is the taxing power of government. I just don't see Musk, et. al. Competing in any realistic way with the Chinese government. Who is planning a manned settlement on the moon. Anyone who thinks that the be all and end all is private enterprise is not being realistic when the power of government as a competitor is factored in. In fact, the only reason the U.S. even had a space program is because of the funding and taxing power of government. Not one single private corporation at the time (or even now) had or has the financial resources to develop the technology required for manned exploration. Even Musk and other so-called private enterprises looking at space development is dependent in large part upon government contracts.
Even if your assertion were correct, all that science is in large part superfluous if not geared toward populating other celestial bodies. Which by the way was essentially abandoned 40 years ago because American politicians were (and still do) view manned space exploration as a waste of time and resources. It is only now, because of the costs involved is there ANY public or private interest in manned space flight in the U.S. And that may only be because of the strategic implications because China has recently announced plans to go to the moon. Which their government can afford a large concerted effort to do so. The west gave up manned space flight and for 40 years languished in a poverty stricken robotics mindset. Ultimately though, it all pretty much hyperbole if the ultimate goal is not manned space flight and now the richest, largest communist country on the planet understands the benefits of manned exploration and intends to tackle the technologies necessary for manned exploration. In other words, the west shot their load 40 years ago and don't have the stamina for a second liaison on the moon or anywhere else.
That's all part of the cost of doing business... yes? I see little reason why commerce and communication over the web should be any different than commerce and communication via land line telecommunications. It may be correct that the web was envisioned as an "open" communication system but I see no reason whatsoever that the same privacy expectations that use to be applicable to land line communications should not apply to the web. In my opinion, there should be a presumption of privacy in ANY form of communication or doing business. And that those who operate various communication pathways to obtain participants explicit permission to share their information. Now, one may argue that the web as it exists today is completely open and public. Thus, people who utilize such pathways are implicitly granting permission to share their information. However, that's ass backwards from pre-internet expectations. Prior to the web, people had an expectation of privacy and there is no reason the web should be any different. Businesses are explicitly on the web to further their markets and WANT the exposure. But private individuals should have to explicitly grant permission to any third party for release of private and personal information including email, business transactions with specific companies, etc. Including the inability of companies to share information with third parties, affiliates, business partners, etc. Every single thing a person engages in on the web should by statute be considered private and one should not have to give up their privacy to communicate or transact business on the web... period.
Well, since we can no longer impeach King George II, I suppose we should just strip him of his presidential perks, and toss him in jail along with, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. for getting us involved in an unjustified and misleading 13 year war in which thousands have been killed or maimed.
The let slavery slide for nearly a century. The founding fathers who were opposed to slavery from the getgo caved into the financial interests of the plantation owners and other slave owners.
Nail on the head there.
As one American recently declared on TV, "There's no law against being stupid."
Can't say I whole-heartedly disagree. There is considerable truth to your assertions. And I'd agree the political parties will ultimately ruin this country. Given that, Libertarianism is too extreme overall. With its overemphasis on "self-interest" at the expense of other social requirements such as highway, energy, fresh water, waste disposal, clean air, infrastructure and maintenance, oversight of interstate commerce, law enforcement and judicial maintenance, etc. etc. you can't run a civil society without an arbitrator to settle disputes, coordinate infrastructure development and all the civil things a large society requires. Problem being, libertarians have no better defined interpretation of "minimalist" government and just how far individual liberties should extend before society in general is undermined. They seem to believe the "smaller the better". But that minimalist position fails to address all the social issues that seem to arise in a large and complex society that requires an arbiter. And history has demonstrated that when individuals are left to their own devises, serving merely their own self-interest, well... history speaks for itself.
AMEN. Hallelujah.
Behold... the archangel of mendacity. The tenor of the trivial. The narrator of narcissism. Who speaks with the same twisted tongue as the evil doers he accuses. Behold... and get on thy knees in praise and pray his wisdom pours upon us in abundance. AMEN
Not unusual commentary for a neo-conservative drone. The facts are of course applicable to the Republican party and more specifically, Boehner, et. al. in Congress as well. No one in D.C. can legitimately claim moral, political, economic or ideological superiority. They've all joisted over their own self-interest. I suppose it isn't hypocritical for King George (Bush) II to go bike riding with the impaired GIs he sent off to settle Bush's War. Or the superbly naïve King strutting on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring the Iraq war was won. Smirking his infamous smirk the entire time. Talk about all the traits attributed to Obama in your cited article. Bush had them and more.
Skin color can be changed. Take for example Michael Jackson. Even though it is reported that he had a skin disease, it was also reported that he sought special treatments to lighten his skin color. Also, many Caucasians seek exposure to the sun to darken their skin color. Now, if you're referring to "race" that might be a different story. But skin color can change.
Concur. But how else is one able to maintain the world's largest military-industrial machine that everyone else in the world wants to act as global constable on patrol? (sarcasm)
And that's why American politics and government is so tucked up. People want to vote for who they think the favorite will be not the best qualified. Which reinforces my assertion that if change is wanted it is not a wasted vote to vote for the best qualified as opposed to a projected winner. Eventually, when voters grasp that things will change. But change will never happen if voters aren't willing to take a chance on someone else. An taking a chance requires the act of voting for that third party candidate.
Illogical; based upon a false assumption. Assumption being that election results are premised upon everyone voting for strictly one of two obvious choices. Based upon that assumption it precludes the possibility of voters electing a third party candidate at some point. History does not determine the future. One does not know in advance what the outcome will be. Your assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If ... voters were left to their own devises a reasonable chance exists that neither one of the obvious choices will be elected. When voters vote for the sole purpose of being on the winning side and not based upon candidate views, ideas, etc. then they are undermining the very idea of democratic elections.
True... but then he didn't lead us into a 12 year war on false premises.