Love Canal was a properly lined and capped toxic waste dump, privately owned. It was seized by the government, and over the warnings of the old owner the integrity of the containment was destroyed.
If you need an analogy you can understand, watch Ghostbusters.
Government investments are inherently more inefficient because the money is funneled through another layer, which bleeds off a portion. Government investments are inherently immoral, because they use funds not acquired voluntarily.
You need both private and public funding or your economy falters.
The statute of limitations generally is a limit on the amount of time that passes from the time of a crime until legal action is begun. The violator doesn't get a free pass just because he evades the law after he's noticed he's being pursued.
Do we have to prove that these compounds are dangerous, in order to get them out of the environment?
You have to demonstrate that there's a fair reason to suspect danger, then further tests are warranted. Every new chemical that will reach a consumer should have some testing, but to prove that it's harmless is an unreasonable restriction. There's always going to be some tradeoff between safety and other concerns.
We could ban any use of silane, it's a very dangerous chemical. Oops, no more semiconductor industry.
The places most likely to contain lead are urban, and areas within a couple of feet of houses built before lead paint was banned. Not much farming goes on in urban areas, and that's where most of the poverty is. Historically, the problem has been babies gnawing on lead painted baseboards and cribs, etc., not their mothers. So perhaps there is some problem with poor pregnant women with lead paint chips near the side of their tumbledown shanties in rural areas, but I doubt that there are many. It's a declining problem, and your "Have you considered the difficulty for a woman trying to avoid lead?" is just hyperbole.
I might have accepted your argument until I read you parroting the lie about Love Canal. Read up on the details yourself; it's not my job to educate fools.
The assumption that global warming is a bad thing is unjustified. One reason among many is that if the climate is warm, it's not necessary to burn stuff to keep warm. Less burning, less air pollution.
Hydrogen fuel cells have a theoretical efficiency of over 60%, and that's something we can't do with combustion engines. Making hydrocarbon fuels from captured CO2 and then burning it is a reasonable interim technology, but it doesn't seem like the best long term approach.
Note that the 16th amendment give the government the power to tax income, but it does not state that the government must tax income. In principle, the income tax could be discontinued without repealing the 16th amendment. Fat chance.
The big message is sent when the result is (for instance) 48/47/5, and both major parties realize they could have had a clear victory if they hadn't alienated the 5%.
FWIW GM tried several times to produce inexpensive, economical cars that on the face of it should have stalled Japanese incursions. The Corvair and the Vega are the two most famous disasters, although Ralph Nader had a large part in destroying the Corvair. The Saturn division (too little, too late) almost did the job, but wasn't profitable and contributed to GM's collapse.
The USPS is also damaged by having its rates set by Congress. They are being expressly forbidden to charge enough to cover their costs, and then everyone is outraged when they lose money.
So the Republicans who voted for McCain in the primary elections did so in order to insure a Republican loss? I know that was the effect, but to claim that was the purpose defies sense.
"Can't we all just get along" might as well have been McCain's motto, and it's the refrain of someone who's been beaten about the head, not a winner.
A recent study produced a graph printed in Investor's Business Daily, showing that the rich/poor gap remained relatively constant during the Bush Jr. years, but expanding rapidly during Obama's dictatorship.
Incidentally, note that Obama's use of government money to buy his family expensive personal items and throw lavish, debauched parties for disreputable heads of foreign governments is precisely what you'd expect of a thug. We are living the nightmare of several dystopian novels.
Any concentration of power risks tyranny. Diversifying areas of power reduces that risk because the different areas will tend to oppose the most egregious abuses of others. That's a seldom-mentioned advantage of the separation of church and state.
As it now stands, there is little to distinguish the power base of the Senate and the House. The House, the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court all benefit from increasing the power of the national government, and none of them is hurt by abusing that power. That abuse inevitably hurts most of the county's inhabitants. Returning the power to appoint Senators to state legislatures diversifies the power base, and makes uniform country-wide despotism more difficult. With that, the risk of localized abuse increases somewhat, but the freedom to move to a less abusive state regains some value.
Randall Paul was not named after Ayn Rand (wikipedia). Ayn Rand lived in the United States from age 21 (1926) onwards. Rand's criticisms of democracy pretty much follow the tradition of America's founders, and her criticisms of American government were based on opposition to collectivist policies.
"The Founding Fathers" primarily refers to the groups of people that A: Signed the Declaration Of Independence or B: Took part in the creation of the Constitution or C: Had a prominent role in getting the Constitution ratified by the states or D: Were American Revolutionary War Leaders/Heroes. The right to vote was determined on a state-by-state (or smaller) basis and voting eligibility standards largely predated the Declaration. Remember, the United Stated was originally a federation of independent political entities.
In short, you are wrong and your claim is malicious and either ignorant or dishonest.
Astrologers live by fleecing the gullible. They are a burden on society and retard civilization. They bring nothing positive to humanity. They deserve our scorn.
For religion, the damage is far greater, but at least some of the promoters attempt to do good.
Slashdot Mirror
Love Canal was a properly lined and capped toxic waste dump, privately owned. It was seized by the government, and over the warnings of the old owner the integrity of the containment was destroyed.
If you need an analogy you can understand, watch Ghostbusters.
Government bailouts are not a part of a free market economy.
Government investments are inherently more inefficient because the money is funneled through another layer, which bleeds off a portion. Government investments are inherently immoral, because they use funds not acquired voluntarily.
[citation needed]
The statute of limitations generally is a limit on the amount of time that passes from the time of a crime until legal action is begun. The violator doesn't get a free pass just because he evades the law after he's noticed he's being pursued.
You have to demonstrate that there's a fair reason to suspect danger, then further tests are warranted. Every new chemical that will reach a consumer should have some testing, but to prove that it's harmless is an unreasonable restriction. There's always going to be some tradeoff between safety and other concerns.
We could ban any use of silane, it's a very dangerous chemical. Oops, no more semiconductor industry.
The places most likely to contain lead are urban, and areas within a couple of feet of houses built before lead paint was banned. Not much farming goes on in urban areas, and that's where most of the poverty is. Historically, the problem has been babies gnawing on lead painted baseboards and cribs, etc., not their mothers. So perhaps there is some problem with poor pregnant women with lead paint chips near the side of their tumbledown shanties in rural areas, but I doubt that there are many. It's a declining problem, and your "Have you considered the difficulty for a woman trying to avoid lead?" is just hyperbole.
I might have accepted your argument until I read you parroting the lie about Love Canal. Read up on the details yourself; it's not my job to educate fools.
The assumption that global warming is a bad thing is unjustified. One reason among many is that if the climate is warm, it's not necessary to burn stuff to keep warm. Less burning, less air pollution.
Hydrogen fuel cells have a theoretical efficiency of over 60%, and that's something we can't do with combustion engines. Making hydrocarbon fuels from captured CO2 and then burning it is a reasonable interim technology, but it doesn't seem like the best long term approach.
That must be really irritating to Audi, and also the maker of Ballantine's beer.
Within limits. Commit murder and your judgeship is moot.
Note that the 16th amendment give the government the power to tax income, but it does not state that the government must tax income. In principle, the income tax could be discontinued without repealing the 16th amendment. Fat chance.
He gave up. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3201789-418/chicago-jesus-board-chico-mayoral.html
The big message is sent when the result is (for instance) 48/47/5, and both major parties realize they could have had a clear victory if they hadn't alienated the 5%.
How does a crotch wig figure into this?
FWIW GM tried several times to produce inexpensive, economical cars that on the face of it should have stalled Japanese incursions. The Corvair and the Vega are the two most famous disasters, although Ralph Nader had a large part in destroying the Corvair. The Saturn division (too little, too late) almost did the job, but wasn't profitable and contributed to GM's collapse.
The USPS is also damaged by having its rates set by Congress. They are being expressly forbidden to charge enough to cover their costs, and then everyone is outraged when they lose money.
So the Republicans who voted for McCain in the primary elections did so in order to insure a Republican loss? I know that was the effect, but to claim that was the purpose defies sense.
"Can't we all just get along" might as well have been McCain's motto, and it's the refrain of someone who's been beaten about the head, not a winner.
A recent study produced a graph printed in Investor's Business Daily, showing that the rich/poor gap remained relatively constant during the Bush Jr. years, but expanding rapidly during Obama's dictatorship.
Incidentally, note that Obama's use of government money to buy his family expensive personal items and throw lavish, debauched parties for disreputable heads of foreign governments is precisely what you'd expect of a thug. We are living the nightmare of several dystopian novels.
Any concentration of power risks tyranny. Diversifying areas of power reduces that risk because the different areas will tend to oppose the most egregious abuses of others. That's a seldom-mentioned advantage of the separation of church and state.
As it now stands, there is little to distinguish the power base of the Senate and the House. The House, the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court all benefit from increasing the power of the national government, and none of them is hurt by abusing that power. That abuse inevitably hurts most of the county's inhabitants. Returning the power to appoint Senators to state legislatures diversifies the power base, and makes uniform country-wide despotism more difficult. With that, the risk of localized abuse increases somewhat, but the freedom to move to a less abusive state regains some value.
Randall Paul was not named after Ayn Rand (wikipedia). Ayn Rand lived in the United States from age 21 (1926) onwards. Rand's criticisms of democracy pretty much follow the tradition of America's founders, and her criticisms of American government were based on opposition to collectivist policies.
"The Founding Fathers" primarily refers to the groups of people that A: Signed the Declaration Of Independence or B: Took part in the creation of the Constitution or C: Had a prominent role in getting the Constitution ratified by the states or D: Were American Revolutionary War Leaders/Heroes. The right to vote was determined on a state-by-state (or smaller) basis and voting eligibility standards largely predated the Declaration. Remember, the United Stated was originally a federation of independent political entities.
In short, you are wrong and your claim is malicious and either ignorant or dishonest.
Dan Lurie lived to be 90. Joe Weider 93. Vic Tanney 73. Charles Atlas 80. Frank Zane is still alive at 71. Jack LaLanne lived to be 96.
Your point was?...
Astrologers live by fleecing the gullible. They are a burden on society and retard civilization. They bring nothing positive to humanity. They deserve our scorn.
For religion, the damage is far greater, but at least some of the promoters attempt to do good.
The position of that rogue planet about to impact on the earth has me scared silly. It's definitely affecting my personality.