The main reason Iran is negotiating on weapons is that the Iranian people elected president Rouhani.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Ask the Pentagon or even the IDF and they'll tell you the same. U.S. threats against Iran - and committing acts of war with Stuxnet or looking the other way as Mossad murders Iran's nuclear scientists - has nothing to do with stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, as Iran has no nuclear weapon's program.
And as for good-faith negotiations, Iran has been trying to do just that for over ten years. The U.S. has either ignored those attempts, or to move the goalposts as soon as Iran has done what the U.S. has asked it to do.
Five people have their iPhone screen crack for random reasons, and it's international news. 5,000 Razr Maxx crack their screens when charging due to a design flaw, and no one cares.
unlike iOS, there are no "no competition" rules for Android apps. If you can find a better (or better for YOU) app than stock Android apps, just use it and stop using the stock Android app. Try that on Apple. You can't.
Nonsense with no basis in reality. You can find no shortage of apps for browsing, music, videos, camera effects, etc for IOS devices that don't come from Apple.
Then maybe your neighbor should have had fewer kids?
Maybe you could try not being a sociopath?
Or maybe he should do something worth as much as it costs to feed his family?
Like going to school to get a degree in something "worthwhile" only to end up back at Taco Bell because no one his hiring in his field, so you can sneer at him a second time for having student loan debt? Have you tried not being an elitist?
Find a company with a large low-paid workforce. Now look at how much they pay in taxes.
What value is the government adding to this transaction, exactly?
What is the point of this non sequitur, exactly? It's not rocket science: you are paying more in taxes to support social services for low wage workers because they are paid so little. If they were paid more, they would need less government assistance, and you would pay less taxes.
As long as there is no slavery in law or in fact
A necessitous man is not a free man.
then the workers are getting paid the least they will accept and the most the company will pay. That's fair.
That's what your sociopathic predecessors said about children working in coal mines. No, it's not fair that someone would have to work at a Taco Bell counter for 24/7/365 for a few centuries to make what the CEO of Yum brands does in one.
You don't care that there are more poor people, as long as they're all equally poor?
Another non-sequitur. Most of your so-called job losses would come from workers cutting back from 3 jobs to 2, or 2 jobs to one.
Prior to the development of modern medicine, your neighbor's father would simply have died. The treatment for Parkinson's disease is expensive. Someone has to pay that cost; if your neighbor decides that it's worth her time to pay it, that's her prerogative. But what right does she or he have to conscript the rest of us to pay for his treatment?
What right do you have to make us pay for your sidewalks, fire service or police protection? This is Civilization 101, sociopath.
Your lack of control over some of your circumstances does not extend to you the right to take control over some of mine.
Like you Randians aren't handing control of your standard of living to FIRE, with or without any cronyism from the government.
The companies are paying the workers, and they are paying taxes
Workers could only dream that they would be taxed like businesses. Your house, your food, your transportation, your monthly bills would be tax-deductible business expenses.
Not in million dollar tax breaks in exchange for low-paid jobs.
The alternative to those low-paid jobs is no work. Is that better?
Have you considered not being a fascist? The jobs are there because the demand is there to support a business, and the tax rate on profits has nothing to do with that.
Yep, but many of the ignorant Snowden supporters see anything that mentions his crimes as an attack.
Because it invariably is? Same with the blatant concern trolling over Manning, where authoritarian hacks spend all day bitching about the rules broken by Manning, but never make a peep over the lawbreaking revealed by Manning. So they had a great deal of Concern over the UCMJ, etc, but would never mention the contractors that traded child sex slaves to warlords to be raped, or infants shot in the head during home invasions in Iraq.
If you're not an authoritarian hack AND you have a functioning sense of proportion, you'd never get to Snowden because you'd be too busy talking about the mountains from the NSA (warrantless wiretapping, fusion centers, perjury before Congress, etc etc) to ever get to the whisteblower.
"The New York Times reports that 'The C.I.A. is paying AT&T more than $10 million a year to assist with overseas counterterrorism investigations
Because Angela Merkel is really suspected of being in Al Qaeda? The U.S. does this because
1) We like being imperialistic fucks 2) Because we can 3) Corporate espionage 4) Skirts the 4th amendment - see DEA and fusion centers
Actual terrorists, they can't catch even when given point-blank warnings from foreign governments or even their own officials. See: 911 and the Boston marathon bombing.
It really took Americans 16 years to work this out? To me, the satire was brazenly obvious the moment I watched it for the first time all those years ago. Reply to This Share
It took 16 years to get past the hatorade of "it was nothing like the book so it suxx", to answering the "okay, granted, but then what?"
His novel asked the question, that bothered him for years â" why do we bestow the franchise on every born American?
So the South wouldn't try to exclude the former slaves from voting by declaring they weren't citizens. This isn't news. Then there's the elitist shitbaggery of looking down on those poor shlubs who actually want to have a say in the laws and representation under which they are governed. Did Heinlein also sit around and wonder why there was a push to lower the voting age from 21 when 18 year olds could be drafted to go off and die in capitalist wars on the other side of the planet?
Again with the selective story lines. When people say "Cadillac" plans, what they really mean is "decent plans that people would actually pay for, with reasonable deductibles".
Secondly, that people will be discouraged from using those plans via the excise tax, under the cruel notion that having non-junk insurance is some kind of luxury.
If Republicans weren't pathetic partisan hacks, they wouldn't have wasted years fighting the passage of their own health care plan, and then years trying to repeal it. They would have just taken Obama's own campaign ad from 2008, savaging McCain for wanting to tax health care benefits, and played it ad nauseum during the 2012 election. That they didn't tells you everything you need to know about how much they actually oppose Obomneycare.
No, a fraction of the Democrat party wanted single-payer.
If by "fraction" you mean "over 50%", then sure. Even the Republic party members wanted a public option, when you told them what it would actually do and not that death panel bullshit.
Oh? Cite? Last I heard
Get your hearing checked.
the Heritage plan was a 15+ year old idea that went out of style long before Obama entered office.
Romneycare. Heard of it? Signed into law by a future GOP nominee for the presidency in 2006 when he was governor. The Heritage Foundation, and the rest of the GOP, had time to denounce and reject their own market-based plan with mandates years before Obama won the nomination, much less took office, much less sold out the public in favor of modeling the ACA on Romneycare. Literally.
You people and your echo chambers...
You partisan tribalists and your lack of self-awareness.
Do you need insurance to drive your car? Where I live you do.
Auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the feds. Auto insurance is actually competitive - you don't see AAA or All State dominating entire regions of the country. And you don't have to deal the network crap that you do with insurance, either.
The right wants to use it to show the left is incompetent. The left seems to be using it to try to prove they don't blindly follow everything the president does and are blaming it all on him.
No. The right is losing it's mind over the passage of the health insurance plan birthed by it's own think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The left still wants it's single payer, or at least a public option. And anyone who isn't a brain-dead partisan tribalist wonders how long we're going to have to endure this farce of Democrats hailing a Heritage Foundation plan as the greatest thing since Medicare, and the Republicans tearing the hair out over the passage of a Republican plan.
Obama has a higher percentage of appointments pass confirmation then Bush did.
[Citation needed]
In any case, I notice you said confirmations and not filibusters. But then we might talk about how democrats filibustering Bush's appointees was the exception, and Republicans filibustering Obama's appointees is the rule.
Then you aren't aware of the memo showing that Obama had traded away the public option to the for-profit hospital lobby, when he was still running around saying "any plan I sign must have a public option" months later.
Obama doesn't have a secret plan to get single payer. He had a secret plan to sell the public on one thing, only to stick them with the mandates and excise taxes he ran against.
Public insurance is still insurance, it's not single payer. Under the public option you would still have to pay premiums, the difference is you would get what you paid for: coverage for health care. As opposed to Blue Cross or Wellpoint, where you premium first has to pay for the hooker and blow budget of the board.
What happened to it is that is didn't have enough support to become law, even among the Democrat party (particularly among the Blue Dogs). That's why the idea was shelved fairly early in the design process.
It was shelved early in the design process because the Democrats never had any real intentions of passing it. It was just marketing fluff to get out the votes, like when the fiscal conservative candidate for the GOP talks about banning abortion. He doesn't actually give a shit, he just wants the votes - same as Barack "any plan I sign must contain a public option" Obama, months after he already gave the PO away to the hospital lobby.
Put the territory under some sort of corporate or government control and let the employees in charge of the territory use deadly force to stop the poachers. Works quite well in Africa where their game reserve rangers can put a.308 through you quite legally if they catch you hunting endangered species.
And if you're the father of a family that's dying of malnutrition or disease, and a single elephant tusk could feed your family for the next 30 years? It's not just greed motivating poachers, but desperation. You need the carrot of bringing people out of poverty to go along with that.308 stick.
This wasn't an experiment, it was a stunt to highlight a problem he saw.
Bohannon's not addressing a problem with open access, since closed-access journals have printed junk articles in the past as well. He's addressing his confirmation bias by setting them up for a James O'Keefe-style hit piece, minus the fake prostitute.
The "control group" isn't necessary if the only question being asked is whether the open access journal would publish a paper that is utterly ridiculous, absolute nonsense.
It is if you want it to be something more than a tabloid hit piece.
My problem with Snowden isn't the leaks about domestic spying, it's that he's taken on the mantle of Truth Warrior freeing all those choice bits of data that our silly little country wants to protect.
No, your problem is that you not being honest. You're just looking for an excuse, any excuse at all, to dismiss the messenger in order to ignore the message. All this is rather obvious when Snowden has spent 99% of his time keeping his head down for obvious reasons. With Manning, it was the false talking point that he 'leaked documents indiscriminately'. Same crap different day.
Firstly, that's not his right to make the call.
The Oath of Office says otherwise. Funny how selective authoritarians are when talking about rules, laws, and ethics.
Secondly, the compromised foreign espionage has done a ton of damage to our country.
Again with the lack of honesty, as Snowden's revelations have shown the spying done on innocent civilians and allies. You can't say with a straight face that letting the people of Brazil know that we are spying on all of their communications, or spying on the U.N., or the personal cell phones of allied prime ministers is doing 'a ton of damage to our country'.
Elected leaders govern with the consent of their constituents. By arguing that the government should have these massive programs in secret, which blatantly violate the Constitution (funny how you don't care about those rules), you are fundamentally arguing against democracy. Furthermore, all this concern trolling over 'harming national security' was made a farce when the USG bragged about listening in on Al Qaeda conference calls, the kind of information you'd actually want to keep top secret.
This is a farce, as are the brownshirt attempts to defend it.
Notice he only submitted his fake papers to open access journals. As a scientist, and especially as a biologist, he's perfectly aware of the importance of control groups. If he were honest, he would have submitted the same papers to closed, for-profit journals as well, even if it cost him money to do so.
I have a solution. We regulate nuclear power plant operators and you state the fuck away from any decision making authority. That's why you have regulation.
I have a solution: you put your Randian fantasies aside and deal with real fucking world for once. Both the examples I cited came from regulated, but for-profit, systems. There's also the trivial matter that like most industries (ag, banking, war), the regulatory bodies are made up of former industry executives, and vice versa. Which, as it always does, creates an incestuous relationship as officials emphasize industry profit so they can take profitable positions in the industry when their term is done.
So, again, we can talk about how safe nuclear power is when all profit is removed from the equation, and the plants are run by an organization with a real safety record.
Slashdot Mirror
Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Ask the Pentagon or even the IDF and they'll tell you the same. U.S. threats against Iran - and committing acts of war with Stuxnet or looking the other way as Mossad murders Iran's nuclear scientists - has nothing to do with stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, as Iran has no nuclear weapon's program.
And as for good-faith negotiations, Iran has been trying to do just that for over ten years. The U.S. has either ignored those attempts, or to move the goalposts as soon as Iran has done what the U.S. has asked it to do.
Five people have their iPhone screen crack for random reasons, and it's international news. 5,000 Razr Maxx crack their screens when charging due to a design flaw, and no one cares.
Nonsense with no basis in reality. You can find no shortage of apps for browsing, music, videos, camera effects, etc for IOS devices that don't come from Apple.
It's bad enough if someone else is slitting your throat - why do it for them?
This offer will directly undercut what remains of their business model. Someone might be a dumbass here, but it's not the shop owners.
Maybe you could try not being a sociopath?
Like going to school to get a degree in something "worthwhile" only to end up back at Taco Bell because no one his hiring in his field, so you can sneer at him a second time for having student loan debt? Have you tried not being an elitist?
Typically very little.
What is the point of this non sequitur, exactly? It's not rocket science: you are paying more in taxes to support social services for low wage workers because they are paid so little. If they were paid more, they would need less government assistance, and you would pay less taxes.
A necessitous man is not a free man.
That's what your sociopathic predecessors said about children working in coal mines. No, it's not fair that someone would have to work at a Taco Bell counter for 24/7/365 for a few centuries to make what the CEO of Yum brands does in one.
Another non-sequitur. Most of your so-called job losses would come from workers cutting back from 3 jobs to 2, or 2 jobs to one.
What right do you have to make us pay for your sidewalks, fire service or police protection? This is Civilization 101, sociopath.
Like you Randians aren't handing control of your standard of living to FIRE, with or without any cronyism from the government.
Workers could only dream that they would be taxed like businesses. Your house, your food, your transportation, your monthly bills would be tax-deductible business expenses.
Have you considered not being a fascist? The jobs are there because the demand is there to support a business, and the tax rate on profits has nothing to do with that.
Because it invariably is? Same with the blatant concern trolling over Manning, where authoritarian hacks spend all day bitching about the rules broken by Manning, but never make a peep over the lawbreaking revealed by Manning. So they had a great deal of Concern over the UCMJ, etc, but would never mention the contractors that traded child sex slaves to warlords to be raped, or infants shot in the head during home invasions in Iraq.
If you're not an authoritarian hack AND you have a functioning sense of proportion, you'd never get to Snowden because you'd be too busy talking about the mountains from the NSA (warrantless wiretapping, fusion centers, perjury before Congress, etc etc) to ever get to the whisteblower.
He also slipped this into his summary:
Just his standard issue repetition of corrupt authoritarian talking points.
Because Angela Merkel is really suspected of being in Al Qaeda? The U.S. does this because
1) We like being imperialistic fucks
2) Because we can
3) Corporate espionage
4) Skirts the 4th amendment - see DEA and fusion centers
Actual terrorists, they can't catch even when given point-blank warnings from foreign governments or even their own officials. See: 911 and the Boston marathon bombing.
It took 16 years to get past the hatorade of "it was nothing like the book so it suxx", to answering the "okay, granted, but then what?"
So the South wouldn't try to exclude the former slaves from voting by declaring they weren't citizens. This isn't news. Then there's the elitist shitbaggery of looking down on those poor shlubs who actually want to have a say in the laws and representation under which they are governed. Did Heinlein also sit around and wonder why there was a push to lower the voting age from 21 when 18 year olds could be drafted to go off and die in capitalist wars on the other side of the planet?
Again with the selective story lines. When people say "Cadillac" plans, what they really mean is "decent plans that people would actually pay for, with reasonable deductibles".
Secondly, that people will be discouraged from using those plans via the excise tax, under the cruel notion that having non-junk insurance is some kind of luxury.
If Republicans weren't pathetic partisan hacks, they wouldn't have wasted years fighting the passage of their own health care plan, and then years trying to repeal it. They would have just taken Obama's own campaign ad from 2008, savaging McCain for wanting to tax health care benefits, and played it ad nauseum during the 2012 election. That they didn't tells you everything you need to know about how much they actually oppose Obomneycare.
If by "fraction" you mean "over 50%", then sure. Even the Republic party members wanted a public option, when you told them what it would actually do and not that death panel bullshit.
Get your hearing checked.
Romneycare. Heard of it? Signed into law by a future GOP nominee for the presidency in 2006 when he was governor. The Heritage Foundation, and the rest of the GOP, had time to denounce and reject their own market-based plan with mandates years before Obama won the nomination, much less took office, much less sold out the public in favor of modeling the ACA on Romneycare. Literally.
You partisan tribalists and your lack of self-awareness.
Auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the feds. Auto insurance is actually competitive - you don't see AAA or All State dominating entire regions of the country. And you don't have to deal the network crap that you do with insurance, either.
No. The right is losing it's mind over the passage of the health insurance plan birthed by it's own think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The left still wants it's single payer, or at least a public option. And anyone who isn't a brain-dead partisan tribalist wonders how long we're going to have to endure this farce of Democrats hailing a Heritage Foundation plan as the greatest thing since Medicare, and the Republicans tearing the hair out over the passage of a Republican plan.
[Citation needed]
In any case, I notice you said confirmations and not filibusters. But then we might talk about how democrats filibustering Bush's appointees was the exception, and Republicans filibustering Obama's appointees is the rule.
Then you aren't aware of the memo showing that Obama had traded away the public option to the for-profit hospital lobby, when he was still running around saying "any plan I sign must have a public option" months later.
Obama doesn't have a secret plan to get single payer. He had a secret plan to sell the public on one thing, only to stick them with the mandates and excise taxes he ran against.
Public insurance is still insurance, it's not single payer. Under the public option you would still have to pay premiums, the difference is you would get what you paid for: coverage for health care. As opposed to Blue Cross or Wellpoint, where you premium first has to pay for the hooker and blow budget of the board.
It was shelved early in the design process because the Democrats never had any real intentions of passing it. It was just marketing fluff to get out the votes, like when the fiscal conservative candidate for the GOP talks about banning abortion. He doesn't actually give a shit, he just wants the votes - same as Barack "any plan I sign must contain a public option" Obama, months after he already gave the PO away to the hospital lobby.
And if you're the father of a family that's dying of malnutrition or disease, and a single elephant tusk could feed your family for the next 30 years? It's not just greed motivating poachers, but desperation. You need the carrot of bringing people out of poverty to go along with that .308 stick.
Like it's not the poachers fault that rhinos are going extinct, just the people that buy their horns?
Bohannon's not addressing a problem with open access, since closed-access journals have printed junk articles in the past as well. He's addressing his confirmation bias by setting them up for a James O'Keefe-style hit piece, minus the fake prostitute.
It is if you want it to be something more than a tabloid hit piece.
No, your problem is that you not being honest. You're just looking for an excuse, any excuse at all, to dismiss the messenger in order to ignore the message. All this is rather obvious when Snowden has spent 99% of his time keeping his head down for obvious reasons. With Manning, it was the false talking point that he 'leaked documents indiscriminately'. Same crap different day.
The Oath of Office says otherwise. Funny how selective authoritarians are when talking about rules, laws, and ethics.
Again with the lack of honesty, as Snowden's revelations have shown the spying done on innocent civilians and allies. You can't say with a straight face that letting the people of Brazil know that we are spying on all of their communications, or spying on the U.N., or the personal cell phones of allied prime ministers is doing 'a ton of damage to our country'.
Elected leaders govern with the consent of their constituents. By arguing that the government should have these massive programs in secret, which blatantly violate the Constitution (funny how you don't care about those rules), you are fundamentally arguing against democracy. Furthermore, all this concern trolling over 'harming national security' was made a farce when the USG bragged about listening in on Al Qaeda conference calls, the kind of information you'd actually want to keep top secret.
This is a farce, as are the brownshirt attempts to defend it.
Notice he only submitted his fake papers to open access journals. As a scientist, and especially as a biologist, he's perfectly aware of the importance of control groups. If he were honest, he would have submitted the same papers to closed, for-profit journals as well, even if it cost him money to do so.
I have a solution: you put your Randian fantasies aside and deal with real fucking world for once. Both the examples I cited came from regulated, but for-profit, systems. There's also the trivial matter that like most industries (ag, banking, war), the regulatory bodies are made up of former industry executives, and vice versa. Which, as it always does, creates an incestuous relationship as officials emphasize industry profit so they can take profitable positions in the industry when their term is done.
So, again, we can talk about how safe nuclear power is when all profit is removed from the equation, and the plants are run by an organization with a real safety record.