Since business interests offloaded the costs of on-the-job training or master/apprentice programs onto the taxpayer via "higher education". And offloaded much of their recruiting and HR costs via internships that pay little to no money.
and the "higher education" system is not setup for that.
They are when four year degrees are the new high school diploma when it comes to job applications.
The risk of a trial outweighs any possible lesson teaching.
Risk? The only official to go to jail for the Bushco torture program wasn't one of it's operators, but one of the whisteblowers who revealed it. The CinC engaged in unlawful command influence by declaring Manning guilty, but the private remains under prosecution.
Obama has prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined, times two. What's one more?
That's why you don't have to pay them - because they show up primarily for their own benefit and provide few, if any, benefits to the host organization.
Few benefits? Other than cutting their recruiting and HR costs by running potential employees through their doors without having to hire them first. Other than offloading most of their on-the-job training and apprenticeships onto the taxpayer and prospective employee via higher education in the first place.
Corporations exist solely by virtue of Nanny State interference in the operations of the Free Market.
Because for-profit ventures didn't exist before or independently of central governments looooong before Randians existed. Because Standard Oil wasn't an abuse monopoly during the Randian Golden Age of post Civil War to WWI. Because Monsanto and Lockheed Martin would fold up shop tomorrow if everyone went Galt and world governments disappeared.
Also, when was an internship ever about credits rather than getting your foot in the door?
Since business interests offloaded the costs of on-the-job training or master/apprentice programs onto the taxpayer via "higher education". And offloaded much of their recruiting and HR costs via internships that pay little to no money.
Money isn't everything, but I'm constantly amazed by folks who don't really consider employment for the rest of their lives.
I'm amazed at people who aren't aware that the real unemployment rate has been 14% for years, or that college costs have gone through the roof compared to just ten years ago.
So, now kids have to take on five figure student loan debt AND work for free their first year out of school. Nice game, if you can afford it.
Well, I am sure that if I dig deep enough, I will find the same with your ancestors, no matter of your country of origin.
As for yours. But I'm not claiming that because the Mongols burned down my family's hut in 1235 AD, that that entitles me to seize your land and possessions almost a thousand years later.
What you depict doesn't remotely resemble genocide, which was the topic.
Which is historical revisionism, i.e. lying.
Similar to the announced intention of the invading Arab armies in 1948. See this A bomb in the King David hotel compared to the mass murder of 6 million people? You don't really seem to have a sense of proportion, which might explain a lot.
Hey! Ford! Up here! (snaps fingers)
You're so far off the rails here that you can't even kept your canards separate and fly off into Godwin territory. But since you went there, isn't it just precious how the same Zionists that would lose their shit if anyone comes within a mile of Holocaust denial turn on a dime and deny the massacres and terrorist attacks of the likes of the Irgun. Which, as you know perfectly well, was the reason why your "Arab armies" invaded after the immigrants laid claim to other people's land. Not genocidal antisemitism.
Jewish immigrants that bought land, even the worst land that nobody else wanted, and made it productive.
Which entitles them to seize their neighbors lands, how exactly? So we should go ahead and give the worst land around Tel Aviv to the Romani, who were butchered by the Nazis with same enthusiasm they had for the Jews, so they can have a homeland of their own. Then, after a few thousand of them have immigrated, they up and lay claim to 75% of Israel.
You also neglect to mention the large numbers of Arabs that immigrated there as well, especially as the Jewish population began improving the economy.
You neglected to mention that those Arabs didn't turn around and lay claim to everyone else's land in the name of Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Morder, etc. And hey, Bobby Jindal's parents are from India, therefore the Trail of Tears is just a conspiracy theory! It's all the same ad hoc bullshit.
You seem to be making it your mission in life to remove whatever fig leaf of respectability "anti-Zionism" has and fully merging it with anti-Semitism.
Ah, the last resort of the Zionist shitbag: accuse anyone who questions Israel of antisemitism. If it's not the first result, anyway. Nice try, but you already know that little lie isn't going to fly. Dispossession and abuse were bullshit when it was being done to the Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to Arabs.
You're standing in the same company as the Inquisition that stole land and property from Jews, and the Popes that forced Jews into ghettos for hundreds of years. But now it's your turn and anyone that gets in your way can go fuck themselves.
Apparently it's not impossible because that's what happened.
In some alternate universe where Jews made up 90% of the area's population in 1900, rather than less than 10%? Where the Jews in 1948 (still a small minority) weren't just off the boat from Europe? Where Israel became a Jewish state by majority vote, including Palestinians, rather than via a war of conquest?
The formation of Israel was no more possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians than the formation of the United States was possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing from the Native Americans.
If Native Americans were regularly engaging in terrorism and justifying it based on some "stolen land" argument, I suspect a lot of people would be yelling at them.
WHOOSH. Of course every single attack from Native American's would have been called "terrorist attacks", if they used the same language then that we do now. But then as now, the occupiers cannot whine when the victims of land theft and systematic oppression dare to fight back.
Guess what, someone isn't a terrorist depending on whether you agree with their goals, they're a terrorist based on what they do. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
Then the United States is the greatest terrorist state on the planet, followed by Israel.
Haha, I actually agree with that.
Oh, I doubt that.
So now that the Jews control the land, it's bullshit for the Palestinians to have a sense of entitlement to it.
So it was bullshit for Jews to go after Swiss banks and Nazi guards for actions that happened before the formation of Israel, much less the 1967 war? Or are you going for some "arbitrary time limit"?
Yet on the 15th May â" Israel's Day of Independence â" Nasser announced a military emergency and started to sent the first two armored divisions into Sinai.
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
By the 17th, Egypt ordered its armed forces to take up battle positions in Sinai.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
So, Israel's justification for attack was an act of war by Egypt? Brilliant!!
So you're admitting that since blockades are an act of war, attacks in response to the blockades of Gaza (and now Iran) are totally justified by Israeli rules?
Brilliant!
Wrong again. First, it isn't a total blockade.
Of course it's a total blockade. Nothing gets in without Israel's approval - that's why they murdered people on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla for daring to bring in food and supplies.
the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza would not have been able to build a new shopping center
Ooo! A shopping mall! Have they rebuilt all the homes destroyed in Cast Lead? If you are shot by an IDF sniper for shits and giggles can you get a wheelchair promptly? How fast will your recovery be while you're being starved, I mean put "on a diet"?
Second, Gaza is not a nation state, but a territory. It shouldn't be attacking anyone. Any attacks coming from there are either direct aggression by the Hamas government, or terrorism
See, this is the problem with trying to justify the unjustifiable - you end up using ad hoc bullshit that will have you squawking with butthurt the second it's turned on you.
So:
If Arabs had done to Jewish settlers in 1947 what Israel has spent the last decades doing to the Palestinians, you would have been just fine with that because there was no Jewish nation-state at the time. You would have been okay with ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, periodic bombings, and fucking starving the Jews. Because there was no Jewish nation-state.
Squawk.
Then there's your other problem: your canard is out of date, since the U.N. voted to give Palestinians status as a non-member state. If you argue that vote changes nothing, then you're also arguing that Israel is not a legitimate state, just because settlers went before the U.N. in the late 40's to ask for nation status.
Squawk.
the Non Proliferation Treaty
Is batshit irrelevant to America's and Israel's illegal threats against Iran, as both the U.S. and Israel admit that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
. Note that the issue between Israel and Iran is totally Iran's fault. Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah governed Iran. It was only after the Islamic revolution that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy to be destroyed. Israel did nothing to warrant that.
Even you know you're in outer space here. There's Israel - maker of dozens of first strikes and wars of choice - making constant threats against Iran - who hasn't attacked another country in two centuries. And you're citing the Shah, seriously? The brutal, torture loving dictator?
So, you continue to side with would-be genocidal aggressors and repeatedly condemn the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, often on specious grounds.
You mean the liberal democracy Iran had until it was destroyed by Israel's sugar daddies, the U.S. and Britain? Outer. Space. And calling Israel a "liberal democracy" is laughable on it's face when it's dependent on Apartheid to stay in power.
For some reason this comes to mind:
More bullshit canards, you mean? Uganda has never been friendly to gays, therefore there was nothin
Yes, you neverminded the fact that Israel started the war with a sneak attack on Egypt, with forces of it's own that it had been assembling for some time. Any reason why that is?
Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:
"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
There's a difference between friendly fire and a whitewash of a deliberate attack.
On 2 October 2007, The Chicago Tribune published a special report[6] into the attack, containing numerous previously unreported quotes from former military personnel with first-hand knowledge of the incident. Many of these quotes directly contradict the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots, claiming that not only did transcripts of those communications exist, but also that it showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.
You're thinking the Yom Kippur war in 1973. The 6 day war the arabs were massing for an attack on all sides, and Israel pre-empted the lot of them.
You're thinking this revisionist history still flies? Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran. The formation of Israel was impossible without ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest from the people living there, much like the formation of the United States. Except the latter didn't happen a mere 46 years ago.
You're projecting, with the usual bullshit handwaving and the usual canards to justify the unjustifiable. The formation of Israel was impossible without massive land theft from the native population, from a bunch of immigrants just off the boat from Europe.
Then there's the other bullshit in the form of headscratching that the victims of land theft and ethnic cleansing feel some sort of animosity towards their oppressors. Do you also spend a lot of time yelling at the Sioux for being pissed that the Black Hills were stolen from them? Still calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he resisted Apartheid?
Zionism is amoral sociopathy. A sense of entitlement to other people's land and property is bullshit, whether it was the Spaniards, the Pope, or the Germans doing it to Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to the people who have lived in Palestine for centuries.
You're not projecting at all. The fact they made token payments later does jack and squat to change the fact the IDF knew perfectly well what they were doing at the time, and Jack left town.
But you are interested in countering the Israelis making twitter posts in remembrance of their defeating Arab armies gathering to commit genocide by reenacting an actual genocide.
As is usually the case, what Zionist shitbags complain about others doing, they did first. Stuff like massacres of Palestinians and terrorist bombings of government buildings. From a bunch of immigrants from Europe, as Jews were less than 10% of the population in 1900.
Zionism == Manifest Destiny. An entirely racist sense of entitlement to other people's land, with bullshit canards to try and justify the unjustifiable.
Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war is the Eygptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Which, for some reason, also entitled them to seize a great deal of surrounding land, most importantly the West Bank.
Except that means that any and all attacks from Hamas or Hezbollah in response to Israel's total blockade of Gaza are completely justified, according to Israeli rules. Just as Israel's possession of a couple hundred nuclear weapons means that they should be threatened with economy-destroying sanctions and military strikes, if Iran is threatened with the same in case they someday decide they want a nuclear weapon.
Whoop de fuking do. Media outlets duitifully mentioned that there were protests against the Iraq war, but that doesn't change the fact they paid less attention to 200,000 people protesting war than 200 teabaggers showing up in goofy hats.
Just as they spent more time hyperventilatting over the IRS than Obama planning a new domestic NSA spy center, signing the NDAA, or waging drone wars against countries that never attacked us. The media is shit and they are softballing what's happening in the region.
Did you just suggest that someone take-out a $30-per-month contract for two years to buy a phone 'cheaply'?
Oh, I "suggested" alright to Verizon that they let me get an iPhone without paying their $30 a month smartphone tax. You probably don't have to guess what their answer was.
Sure it's new. We've never before had precise, cheap, risk-free, weaponized surveillance.
Artillery might be cheap and risk-free (depending on your location), but it's not as precise. A bomb dropped from a B-52 at night might be precise and risk-free (depending on your target), but it's not cheap. A hellfire missile fired from a helicopter might be as precise as one from a drone, but sending the helicopter risks your own forces - and they're not cheap. Your special forces team could radio coordinates to a battleship parked offshore, which could fire a very precise Tomahawk - but your team risks death or capture. U2 spy planes have been around for more than 50 years - but their surveillance isn't weaponized.
If LBJ and Nixon had drones, we might not have ever gotten out of Vietnam, because America wouldn't have gotten sick and tired of boys coming home in body bags. If Bush had a drone fleet prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Republicans might not have lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Because he wouldn't have killed the GOP brand by spending 4,000+ lives while driving the country deep into debt.
Apple is reportedly pursuing a similar strategy with the iPhone, as reports from the past several months have pointed to development of a 'low-cost iPhone' with basic features to be sold at a lower price point."
There already is a low-cost iPhone, and it's been out for years. It's called Last Year's iPhone, and it's $100 with contract. And the iPhone from two years ago is free with contract.
It would be like the press jabbering at Samsung for a cheaper Galaxy phone, when you could get a newly built model two versions old for that cheaper price. Why reinvent the wheel...
Of course you're aware that tens of millions of people are out of work, just here in the United States, in the worst economic times since the Great Depression. But since the conversation isn't about the standard red herrings of the CRA or Barney Frank, you're planing dumb.
So you are saying that if only the US actually wrecked its economy to be as poor as that of Europe
So you're saying you like trying to change the subject when it's inconvenient for you?
Actually, they are enjoying worse health care.
Actually, now you're just ignoring facts that contradict your Randian sociopathy. Also known as lying. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with.
while not forcing their young to gamble their future on 5 figure student loans.
An excellent public university education in the US is about $8000/year in tuition
Which becomes a five figure student loan in less than 1.5 semesters. I didn't know Teabaggers were now trying to have their own set of maths to go with with their own economics and history.
Slashdot Mirror
They are when four year degrees are the new high school diploma when it comes to job applications.
Risk? The only official to go to jail for the Bushco torture program wasn't one of it's operators, but one of the whisteblowers who revealed it. The CinC engaged in unlawful command influence by declaring Manning guilty, but the private remains under prosecution.
Obama has prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined, times two. What's one more?
Few benefits? Other than cutting their recruiting and HR costs by running potential employees through their doors without having to hire them first. Other than offloading most of their on-the-job training and apprenticeships onto the taxpayer and prospective employee via higher education in the first place.
Corporations. Are they not merciful?
Because for-profit ventures didn't exist before or independently of central governments looooong before Randians existed. Because Standard Oil wasn't an abuse monopoly during the Randian Golden Age of post Civil War to WWI. Because Monsanto and Lockheed Martin would fold up shop tomorrow if everyone went Galt and world governments disappeared.
Because you guys are freaking Loony Tunes.
Since business interests offloaded the costs of on-the-job training or master/apprentice programs onto the taxpayer via "higher education". And offloaded much of their recruiting and HR costs via internships that pay little to no money.
I'm amazed at people who aren't aware that the real unemployment rate has been 14% for years, or that college costs have gone through the roof compared to just ten years ago.
So, now kids have to take on five figure student loan debt AND work for free their first year out of school. Nice game, if you can afford it.
Scotsmen aint got nothin on True Libertarians....
As for yours. But I'm not claiming that because the Mongols burned down my family's hut in 1235 AD, that that entitles me to seize your land and possessions almost a thousand years later.
When you aren't even descended from Mongols.
Which is historical revisionism, i.e. lying.
Hey! Ford! Up here! (snaps fingers)
You're so far off the rails here that you can't even kept your canards separate and fly off into Godwin territory. But since you went there, isn't it just precious how the same Zionists that would lose their shit if anyone comes within a mile of Holocaust denial turn on a dime and deny the massacres and terrorist attacks of the likes of the Irgun. Which, as you know perfectly well, was the reason why your "Arab armies" invaded after the immigrants laid claim to other people's land. Not genocidal antisemitism.
Which entitles them to seize their neighbors lands, how exactly? So we should go ahead and give the worst land around Tel Aviv to the Romani, who were butchered by the Nazis with same enthusiasm they had for the Jews, so they can have a homeland of their own. Then, after a few thousand of them have immigrated, they up and lay claim to 75% of Israel.
You neglected to mention that those Arabs didn't turn around and lay claim to everyone else's land in the name of Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Morder, etc. And hey, Bobby Jindal's parents are from India, therefore the Trail of Tears is just a conspiracy theory! It's all the same ad hoc bullshit.
Ah, the last resort of the Zionist shitbag: accuse anyone who questions Israel of antisemitism. If it's not the first result, anyway. Nice try, but you already know that little lie isn't going to fly. Dispossession and abuse were bullshit when it was being done to the Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to Arabs.
You're standing in the same company as the Inquisition that stole land and property from Jews, and the Popes that forced Jews into ghettos for hundreds of years. But now it's your turn and anyone that gets in your way can go fuck themselves.
In some alternate universe where Jews made up 90% of the area's population in 1900, rather than less than 10%? Where the Jews in 1948 (still a small minority) weren't just off the boat from Europe? Where Israel became a Jewish state by majority vote, including Palestinians, rather than via a war of conquest?
The formation of Israel was no more possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians than the formation of the United States was possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing from the Native Americans.
WHOOSH. Of course every single attack from Native American's would have been called "terrorist attacks", if they used the same language then that we do now. But then as now, the occupiers cannot whine when the victims of land theft and systematic oppression dare to fight back.
Then the United States is the greatest terrorist state on the planet, followed by Israel.
Oh, I doubt that.
So it was bullshit for Jews to go after Swiss banks and Nazi guards for actions that happened before the formation of Israel, much less the 1967 war? Or are you going for some "arbitrary time limit"?
Halfwitted wishful thinking at it's poorest.
Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.
Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.
But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.
Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.
Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.
So you're admitting that since blockades are an act of war, attacks in response to the blockades of Gaza (and now Iran) are totally justified by Israeli rules?
Brilliant!
Of course it's a total blockade. Nothing gets in without Israel's approval - that's why they murdered people on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla for daring to bring in food and supplies.
Ooo! A shopping mall! Have they rebuilt all the homes destroyed in Cast Lead? If you are shot by an IDF sniper for shits and giggles can you get a wheelchair promptly? How fast will your recovery be while you're being starved, I mean put "on a diet"?
See, this is the problem with trying to justify the unjustifiable - you end up using ad hoc bullshit that will have you squawking with butthurt the second it's turned on you.
So:
If Arabs had done to Jewish settlers in 1947 what Israel has spent the last decades doing to the Palestinians, you would have been just fine with that because there was no Jewish nation-state at the time. You would have been okay with ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, periodic bombings, and fucking starving the Jews. Because there was no Jewish nation-state.
Squawk.
Then there's your other problem: your canard is out of date, since the U.N. voted to give Palestinians status as a non-member state. If you argue that vote changes nothing, then you're also arguing that Israel is not a legitimate state, just because settlers went before the U.N. in the late 40's to ask for nation status.
Squawk.
Is batshit irrelevant to America's and Israel's illegal threats against Iran, as both the U.S. and Israel admit that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Who do you think you're even trying to kid here? Mordechai Vanunu?
Even you know you're in outer space here. There's Israel - maker of dozens of first strikes and wars of choice - making constant threats against Iran - who hasn't attacked another country in two centuries. And you're citing the Shah, seriously? The brutal, torture loving dictator?
You mean the liberal democracy Iran had until it was destroyed by Israel's sugar daddies, the U.S. and Britain? Outer. Space. And calling Israel a "liberal democracy" is laughable on it's face when it's dependent on Apartheid to stay in power.
More bullshit canards, you mean? Uganda has never been friendly to gays, therefore there was nothin
Yes, you neverminded the fact that Israel started the war with a sneak attack on Egypt, with forces of it's own that it had been assembling for some time. Any reason why that is?
I guess you're not done projecting:
There's a difference between friendly fire and a whitewash of a deliberate attack.
All in the article, if you read it.
If it was your brother or father being murdered would you consider that an equitable payment or chump change?
You're thinking this revisionist history still flies? Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran. The formation of Israel was impossible without ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest from the people living there, much like the formation of the United States. Except the latter didn't happen a mere 46 years ago.
You're projecting, with the usual bullshit handwaving and the usual canards to justify the unjustifiable. The formation of Israel was impossible without massive land theft from the native population, from a bunch of immigrants just off the boat from Europe.
Then there's the other bullshit in the form of headscratching that the victims of land theft and ethnic cleansing feel some sort of animosity towards their oppressors. Do you also spend a lot of time yelling at the Sioux for being pissed that the Black Hills were stolen from them? Still calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he resisted Apartheid?
Zionism is amoral sociopathy. A sense of entitlement to other people's land and property is bullshit, whether it was the Spaniards, the Pope, or the Germans doing it to Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to the people who have lived in Palestine for centuries.
You're not projecting at all. The fact they made token payments later does jack and squat to change the fact the IDF knew perfectly well what they were doing at the time, and Jack left town.
As is usually the case, what Zionist shitbags complain about others doing, they did first. Stuff like massacres of Palestinians and terrorist bombings of government buildings. From a bunch of immigrants from Europe, as Jews were less than 10% of the population in 1900.
Zionism == Manifest Destiny. An entirely racist sense of entitlement to other people's land, with bullshit canards to try and justify the unjustifiable.
Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war is the Eygptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Which, for some reason, also entitled them to seize a great deal of surrounding land, most importantly the West Bank.
Except that means that any and all attacks from Hamas or Hezbollah in response to Israel's total blockade of Gaza are completely justified, according to Israeli rules. Just as Israel's possession of a couple hundred nuclear weapons means that they should be threatened with economy-destroying sanctions and military strikes, if Iran is threatened with the same in case they someday decide they want a nuclear weapon.
Whoop de fuking do. Media outlets duitifully mentioned that there were protests against the Iraq war, but that doesn't change the fact they paid less attention to 200,000 people protesting war than 200 teabaggers showing up in goofy hats.
Just as they spent more time hyperventilatting over the IRS than Obama planning a new domestic NSA spy center, signing the NDAA, or waging drone wars against countries that never attacked us. The media is shit and they are softballing what's happening in the region.
Oh, I "suggested" alright to Verizon that they let me get an iPhone without paying their $30 a month smartphone tax. You probably don't have to guess what their answer was.
Sure it's new. We've never before had precise, cheap, risk-free, weaponized surveillance.
Artillery might be cheap and risk-free (depending on your location), but it's not as precise. A bomb dropped from a B-52 at night might be precise and risk-free (depending on your target), but it's not cheap. A hellfire missile fired from a helicopter might be as precise as one from a drone, but sending the helicopter risks your own forces - and they're not cheap. Your special forces team could radio coordinates to a battleship parked offshore, which could fire a very precise Tomahawk - but your team risks death or capture. U2 spy planes have been around for more than 50 years - but their surveillance isn't weaponized.
If LBJ and Nixon had drones, we might not have ever gotten out of Vietnam, because America wouldn't have gotten sick and tired of boys coming home in body bags. If Bush had a drone fleet prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Republicans might not have lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Because he wouldn't have killed the GOP brand by spending 4,000+ lives while driving the country deep into debt.
There already is a low-cost iPhone, and it's been out for years. It's called Last Year's iPhone, and it's $100 with contract. And the iPhone from two years ago is free with contract.
It would be like the press jabbering at Samsung for a cheaper Galaxy phone, when you could get a newly built model two versions old for that cheaper price. Why reinvent the wheel...
Of course you're aware that tens of millions of people are out of work, just here in the United States, in the worst economic times since the Great Depression. But since the conversation isn't about the standard red herrings of the CRA or Barney Frank, you're planing dumb.
So you're saying you like trying to change the subject when it's inconvenient for you?
Actually, now you're just ignoring facts that contradict your Randian sociopathy. Also known as lying. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with.
Which becomes a five figure student loan in less than 1.5 semesters. I didn't know Teabaggers were now trying to have their own set of maths to go with with their own economics and history.