The rich are even more scared of the police than non-rich people..
Since when? When would the average shmoe be able to get busted for drugs and/or theft like Lindsey Lohan and get off with a slap on the wrist, or less?
There's the fact that this was the worst point in your crappy post. Apple makes a tiny profit off the App Store but they treat it as a loss leader. Most of the money goes first to developers, then to credit card companies, then to store maintenance, then a tiny profit left over for them.
But, Apple Haterz gotta Hate. By any means necessary.
As long as recipients of Social Security and Medicare continue to receive benefits at the current rates, we're doomed.
Medicare has its own issues, but the Social Security bit is a total lie. Before the Boomers, SS was a paygo system - benefits were paid out directly from the taxes paid in. The Boomers paid for theirs in advance - that's why the "Trust Fund" was created. By the time the Trust Fund is gone, so will be the Boomers - and the need for the Fund in the first place.
Furthermore, it's literally impossible for Social Security to add to the deficit or "go bankrupt", as there will always be some measure of benefits going out as payroll taxes come in. We could go into a permanent global depression and there would still be some measure of benefits.
If we don't eventually means test SS and Medicare, we will go completely bankrupt.
"Means Testing" turns both programs into welfare, instead of programs you've earned and paid into your entire working life. Which means they will be on the chopping block, from both the rich (would you deny a rich person coverage for the auto insurance policy he's paid for, because 'he can afford' an accident?) and from idiot conservative voters who have been told by their corporate masters that it's the little people who are at fault for the world's problems.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it - to kill Social Security and Medicare by any means necessary, no matter how dishonest?
The problem with our current campaign funding is not where the money comes from but rather the lack of ethics of the people receiving it.
But how are those separate issues? The same corrupt FIRE companies that own the Republicans have also bought off the Democrats - as evidence when Wall Street gave more money to Obama than the entire GOP primary field combined.
Sure looks like the source of the money has something to do with the problem...
Unfortunately, a requirement like this will be seen as racist
Because a lot of it is racist, and if not racist, classist. Why oh god why should the uneducated be prevented from voting? You would have sent hundreds of thousands of young men off to Vietnam via the draft but prevent them from voting on it?
We are rapidly approaching the reverse of the above where those whom are wholly reliant upon the government for their subsistence will continue to vote to retain (and in fact, increase) that subsidy without regard for the financial feesibility of such a vote.
Eh? You including retires living on Social Security (who paid into it by, you know, working) in that? How about the millions of those who lost their jobs and/or homes in the financial collapse after 2008?
If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation in this country, it would be over $50 an hour today. Why is income disparity not a factor in your analysis?
Military bases aren't huge cash cows for the states they reside in? Who knew? Guess we can tell them all that they should stop fighting tooth and nail for any base closures that effect them....
Whining about ad hominems with a side order of word salad in order to dodge the question, as you are perfectly aware of who would be disproportionately hit by any attempt to disenfranchise the poor and uneducated.
Driving is a right, unless you are unable (disabled) or are otherwise disqualified (you're 8 years old, or 50 years old with 10 DUI arrests).
Because we have freedom of association in this country. Freedom of association requires freedom to travel. And in many areas of this country, freedom of travel requires...the freedom to drive.
to vote themselves plenty of the elite aristocracy's money. 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
The rich have taken plenty of the poors money by using Social Security surpluses to fund tax cuts for the rich and the military-industrial-contractor-congressional-surviellance complex. Which benefits the rich.
I'll put aside the poetry in your lack of punctuation or capitalization for a second and simply address the poetry in your ignorance of the limited role of federal government, as defined by the Consitituion.
And I'll put aside the condescension and simply address the false conservative dogma.
First, defense is a large contributor to federal spending (24%).
First problem: actual war spending (lets call it what it is) is double the advertized number. Lots of items are left out of the "official" DOD budget yet are obviously defense spending: the VA, the Department of Energy maintaining our nuclear weapon stockpile, DHS, and interest on past wars. The real public price tag on war spending is $1.2 trillion per year.
And this is exactly appropriate.
Second problem: appropriate to spend more than the rest of the world combined? Appropriate more than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union? Appropriate when you have a greater chance of dying from a fall in your own bathtub than by being killed in a terrorist attack? When we are surrounded by two large, friendly nations, the world's two largest oceans, and haven't faced an invasion in 200 years? Looks like Pete Hoekstra isn't the only one with a malformed sense of proportion. We could lop a zero off our defense spending and have more than enough for actual defense spending to you know, defend us.
That being said, defense spending is steamrolled by the combined total spending in Pensions (22%)
What are military pensions? Military spending.
Healthcare (22%)
What is the VA? Military spending.
and Wellfare (%12), none of which are defined roles of the federal government.
Third and greatest problem: General Welfare. It's in the Constitution.
Twice.
And let's go ahead and skip the rationalizations of how General Welfare is limited, shall we? Because it's listed in the same sentence in Article 1, Section 8 as "Common Defense". Which means that if "General Welfare" is strictly limited, and not at all expansive, then so is Common Defense. As Congress only explicitly grants Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy, that of course means that huge chunks of our military and intelligence apparatus are flatly unconstitutional.
Like the Air Force. Like the military portion of the Department of Energy. Like most of the FBI. Like most of DHS. Like NORAD. Like the CIA. Like the NSA. Like any of the other 15 out of 17 intelligence agencies that are not attached to the Army or Navy.
Isn't it amazing how the same conservatives that complain about how Social Security is unconstitutional because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution don't do the same for the equally unconstitutional Air Force or CIA, etc. But no, all that's "entirely appropriate".
but I would ask you to conced that their is equal or greater corruption in the worlds of green energy, public works, law enforcememt, and even welfare.
Why would anyone do that, when your comparisons aren't on the same planet, much less the same page? When was the last time the 'green energy' industry up and "lost" 6 billion dollars in Iraq?
Are you aware that the Justice Dept is supposed to ensure that Congress and the President do not violate the Constituion?
Speaking of civic ignorance, are you aware that the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch? So the part of the executive branch app
Let's put it down to the Fox News Effect, but your post is pretty much conservative urban legend crap.
In 2010 ACORN alone had over 15 convictions of fraud related activities.
Vote REGISTRATION fraud. Not actual VOTING fraud.
This is not some trivial difference, as organizations are required by law to turn in all the forms they collect. So if someone registers as Micky Mouse, ACORN would flag that form and set it aside for state officials to look at - a fact that seems to have been left out of your storyline. They can't pick and choose forms to throw in the trash, for reasons that should be obvious - partisans would throw forms from the opposing party in the trash.
Just last year at least 10 separate states investigated, indicted and/or convicted people for voter fraud and in almost every case (with at least 1 exception) the suspects were Democrats and/or their operatives.
Ali, on the other hand, a 68-year-old Pakistani-born jewelry store owner in Tallahassee, Fla, didn't cast a vote at all. When Ali went to renew his driver's license at a Florida DMV, he was handed a stack of forms to fill out by the clerk. One of them, it turns out, was a voter registration form. He says he hadn't noticed that it was only for U.S. citizens and, in any case, he never actually voted. Ali's unintentional voter registration crime, a federal misdemeanor, resulted in his deportation back to Pakistan, though he had legally lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years.
Or Kimberly Prude?
Prude, a 43-year-old African-American woman from Milwaukee, was convicted of cashing a counterfeit check for $1,254 in 2000. She never served any jail time but was still on probation four years later, at the end of 2004, when she attended a Democratic election rally. Marching with others to City Hall that day, Prude registered to become a voter and later voted by absentee ballot, since she had also signed up to serve as a poll worker and therefore wouldn't be available to vote in person on Election Day. Since she hadnâ(TM)t served time in jail, she thought she was permitted to vote, but later found out from her probation officer that she was wrong. She immediately called City Hall in hopes of rescinding her vote. Her thanks for doing so? She was convicted of felony voter fraud by the U.S. attorney in the state of Wisconsin and sent to prison for more than a year.
The only **actual fraud** here is the Republican Party pretending this is a grave problem necessitating draconian voter ID laws when you can literally count the number of actual cases on one, maybe two hands. Out of millions and millions of votes cast nationwide.
and in almost every case (with at least 1 exception) the suspects were Democrats and/or their operatives.
Your partisan stone throwing would be funny if the Secretary of State of Indiana wasn't just convicted of half a dozen counts of actual voting fraud when he was the man in charge of the state's elections. And if Ann Coulter hadn't voted in two districts in the same election.
And if the GOP hadn't stolen a presidential election by disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible voters in Florida.
If we voted by straight democratic voting, the best bet for every candidate would be to hit the big population centers.
They'd be hitting the major media markets, which happen to cover the vast majority of the population. It doesn't matter if you live in Jerkwater MN, pop 400, if you are in the broadcast area of Minneapolis.
Politicians would concentrate most of their efforts on the coasts, in the South, and in the big cities scattered across the midwest. Which is where most Americans happen to live, and would be better than our current system where elections are decided by a couple million "swing" voters in a handful of states.
The Electoral College means that a candidate can't concentrate on the dense population areas but has to spend time campaigning for the thinly-spread ones too.
Not with winner-take-all voting, they don't. A liberal living in South Dakota or a conservative living in California have no practical say in who becomes president, because all their states electoral votes will go for one party or the other.
The other thing that the Electoral College does is take the election results past the margin of error. It amplifies the winner so that it's very clear which person is the winner.
Except when the popular vote winner loses the Electoral College vote, of course. Like Al Gore 12 years ago, though he also would have won the EC vote if there had been a full statewide recount. And how humbled was Bush by either of those facts?
I'm not saying that anyone should blindly follow their elected leaders but:
That's exactly what you're saying with the:
'We should trust them/give benefit of the doubt because they might know things that you don't'
...which of course went out the window with the Pentagon Papers. And Nigerian yellowcake and aluminum tubes. And 'most transparent administration ever'. And 'any plan I sign must contain a Public Option. And 'I will renegotiate NAFTA'. And....
...not the monied interests and mass media (I apologize for the redundancy) that have polluted our political discourse? How is the average American supposed to make an informed opinion on, say, Iran when the the overwhelming view presented from the point of view of right wing Israelis and Americans?
How many Americans know that for all the sabre rattling on Iran, that the 'Islamic Republic' boogyman hasn't actually attacked another nation in two centuries? How many Americans hear the hyperventilating about Iran 'getting the bomb' and know that Israel already has hundreds of nukes? How many Americans know that Iran had a secular, democratic government until it was overthrown in a coup by the U.S. and Britain?
Before you attack the population at large for not knowing shit, you might want to address the fact that the population at large is fed shit to begin with - don't be surprised with what comes out.
Spin a little faster and we'll have cold fusion...
on
Is Stratfor a "Joke"?
·
· Score: 1
The group's reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor
In an intelligence community that swore, on the record, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons to add to his already formidable stockpile of conventional WMD's? That Hussein had operational ties to Bin Laddin?
So, what you're saying is that both the (D) and the (R) having complete control is a REALLY bad thing.
If I was like David Broder and had a three year old's understanding of the world, that might be the case. In reality, I don't put much stock in trite witticisms that place all the importance on whatever partisan game one happens to play, but doesn't give a shit about what the actual results actually are.
Say Joe Lieberman is coming back from the golf course with John Boehner, and they see a blind lady trying to cross a busy street. Lieberman suggests they steal the old ladies purse. Boehner says they should steal her purse, then shove her down a flight of stairs before setting her on fire.
The Broder way: What's important is that the Democrat and the Republican come to a bipartisan agreement on this, and meet each other half way. So the best solution is to rob the lady and push her down the stairs, but stop short of setting her on fire.
The 'Gridlock is Good' way: It's a good thing that Joe and John are sitting around arguing about this, because the best result is when the government gets nothing done. So while the senator and the representative are bickering, the old lady tries to cross the street on her own and is hit by a bus.
The decent, non-head-up-the-ass way: You help her get across the frikkin street already. Then you start recruiting primary challengers for Lieberman and Boehner, no matter which party you happen to be from.
Problem: nuclear power isn't ready for human hubris and greed, which puts profit above safety.
And that's before you get to the fact that nuclear is the most expensive power source, by far. Billions to construct plants and process ore. Billions more in insurance. Billions more in monitoring and containment costs.
even if you plan to bury it it the middle of the desert, 2,000ft underground
And your underground storage facility will have to be monitored and maintained - for hundreds of years.
Nuclear power is nothing more than a shiny toy for pedants, and a corporate cash cow for an industry totally co-opted by regulatory capture.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when? When would the average shmoe be able to get busted for drugs and/or theft like Lindsey Lohan and get off with a slap on the wrist, or less?
There's the fact that this was the worst point in your crappy post. Apple makes a tiny profit off the App Store but they treat it as a loss leader. Most of the money goes first to developers, then to credit card companies, then to store maintenance, then a tiny profit left over for them.
But, Apple Haterz gotta Hate. By any means necessary.
Manning's oath was to protect the Constitution, not American Imperialism.
Radtea shredded your jinjoistic apologism, but left this one out:
And released a full version of the video as well. Which does nothing to change the story. This isn't one of Brietbart's edit jobs.
Why so dishonest, cavreader?
Why would you talk about smartphones vs tablets when the point was DSLR's vs tablets?
That's not addressing the central flaw in your "Big Gubbmit" storyline....
Or, total crap.
That happens as well. If a company thinks it will make more money by doing something, it will go right ahead and do it.
Medicare has its own issues, but the Social Security bit is a total lie. Before the Boomers, SS was a paygo system - benefits were paid out directly from the taxes paid in. The Boomers paid for theirs in advance - that's why the "Trust Fund" was created. By the time the Trust Fund is gone, so will be the Boomers - and the need for the Fund in the first place.
Furthermore, it's literally impossible for Social Security to add to the deficit or "go bankrupt", as there will always be some measure of benefits going out as payroll taxes come in. We could go into a permanent global depression and there would still be some measure of benefits.
"Means Testing" turns both programs into welfare, instead of programs you've earned and paid into your entire working life. Which means they will be on the chopping block, from both the rich (would you deny a rich person coverage for the auto insurance policy he's paid for, because 'he can afford' an accident?) and from idiot conservative voters who have been told by their corporate masters that it's the little people who are at fault for the world's problems.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it - to kill Social Security and Medicare by any means necessary, no matter how dishonest?
But how are those separate issues? The same corrupt FIRE companies that own the Republicans have also bought off the Democrats - as evidence when Wall Street gave more money to Obama than the entire GOP primary field combined.
Sure looks like the source of the money has something to do with the problem...
Because a lot of it is racist, and if not racist, classist. Why oh god why should the uneducated be prevented from voting? You would have sent hundreds of thousands of young men off to Vietnam via the draft but prevent them from voting on it?
Eh? You including retires living on Social Security (who paid into it by, you know, working) in that? How about the millions of those who lost their jobs and/or homes in the financial collapse after 2008?
If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation in this country, it would be over $50 an hour today. Why is income disparity not a factor in your analysis?
Military bases aren't huge cash cows for the states they reside in? Who knew? Guess we can tell them all that they should stop fighting tooth and nail for any base closures that effect them....
Whining about ad hominems with a side order of word salad in order to dodge the question, as you are perfectly aware of who would be disproportionately hit by any attempt to disenfranchise the poor and uneducated.
Driving is a right, unless you are unable (disabled) or are otherwise disqualified (you're 8 years old, or 50 years old with 10 DUI arrests).
Because we have freedom of association in this country. Freedom of association requires freedom to travel. And in many areas of this country, freedom of travel requires...the freedom to drive.
The rich have taken plenty of the poors money by using Social Security surpluses to fund tax cuts for the rich and the military-industrial-contractor-congressional-surviellance complex. Which benefits the rich.
And I'll put aside the condescension and simply address the false conservative dogma.
First problem: actual war spending (lets call it what it is) is double the advertized number. Lots of items are left out of the "official" DOD budget yet are obviously defense spending: the VA, the Department of Energy maintaining our nuclear weapon stockpile, DHS, and interest on past wars. The real public price tag on war spending is $1.2 trillion per year.
Second problem: appropriate to spend more than the rest of the world combined? Appropriate more than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union? Appropriate when you have a greater chance of dying from a fall in your own bathtub than by being killed in a terrorist attack? When we are surrounded by two large, friendly nations, the world's two largest oceans, and haven't faced an invasion in 200 years? Looks like Pete Hoekstra isn't the only one with a malformed sense of proportion. We could lop a zero off our defense spending and have more than enough for actual defense spending to you know, defend us.
What are military pensions? Military spending.
What is the VA? Military spending.
Third and greatest problem: General Welfare. It's in the Constitution.
Twice.
And let's go ahead and skip the rationalizations of how General Welfare is limited, shall we? Because it's listed in the same sentence in Article 1, Section 8 as "Common Defense". Which means that if "General Welfare" is strictly limited, and not at all expansive, then so is Common Defense. As Congress only explicitly grants Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy, that of course means that huge chunks of our military and intelligence apparatus are flatly unconstitutional.
Like the Air Force.
Like the military portion of the Department of Energy.
Like most of the FBI.
Like most of DHS.
Like NORAD.
Like the CIA.
Like the NSA.
Like any of the other 15 out of 17 intelligence agencies that are not attached to the Army or Navy.
Isn't it amazing how the same conservatives that complain about how Social Security is unconstitutional because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution don't do the same for the equally unconstitutional Air Force or CIA, etc. But no, all that's "entirely appropriate".
Why would anyone do that, when your comparisons aren't on the same planet, much less the same page? When was the last time the 'green energy' industry up and "lost" 6 billion dollars in Iraq?
Speaking of civic ignorance, are you aware that the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch? So the part of the executive branch app
Let's put it down to the Fox News Effect, but your post is pretty much conservative urban legend crap.
Vote REGISTRATION fraud. Not actual VOTING fraud.
This is not some trivial difference, as organizations are required by law to turn in all the forms they collect. So if someone registers as Micky Mouse, ACORN would flag that form and set it aside for state officials to look at - a fact that seems to have been left out of your storyline. They can't pick and choose forms to throw in the trash, for reasons that should be obvious - partisans would throw forms from the opposing party in the trash.
You mean people like Usman Ali?
Or Kimberly Prude?
The only **actual fraud** here is the Republican Party pretending this is a grave problem necessitating draconian voter ID laws when you can literally count the number of actual cases on one, maybe two hands. Out of millions and millions of votes cast nationwide.
Your partisan stone throwing would be funny if the Secretary of State of Indiana wasn't just convicted of half a dozen counts of actual voting fraud when he was the man in charge of the state's elections. And if Ann Coulter hadn't voted in two districts in the same election.
And if the GOP hadn't stolen a presidential election by disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible voters in Florida.
They'd be hitting the major media markets, which happen to cover the vast majority of the population. It doesn't matter if you live in Jerkwater MN, pop 400, if you are in the broadcast area of Minneapolis.
Politicians would concentrate most of their efforts on the coasts, in the South, and in the big cities scattered across the midwest. Which is where most Americans happen to live, and would be better than our current system where elections are decided by a couple million "swing" voters in a handful of states.
Not with winner-take-all voting, they don't. A liberal living in South Dakota or a conservative living in California have no practical say in who becomes president, because all their states electoral votes will go for one party or the other.
Except when the popular vote winner loses the Electoral College vote, of course. Like Al Gore 12 years ago, though he also would have won the EC vote if there had been a full statewide recount. And how humbled was Bush by either of those facts?
I did compare it...and the only things they have in common are coming in a rectangular box. Really, that's your "there there"?
Really? Weak sauce is weak, man.
Nevermind that Xerox got paid by Apple at the time, of course. Or that GUI's had been dabbled with before Xerox Parc.
That's exactly what you're saying with the:
...not the monied interests and mass media (I apologize for the redundancy) that have polluted our political discourse? How is the average American supposed to make an informed opinion on, say, Iran when the the overwhelming view presented from the point of view of right wing Israelis and Americans?
How many Americans know that for all the sabre rattling on Iran, that the 'Islamic Republic' boogyman hasn't actually attacked another nation in two centuries? How many Americans hear the hyperventilating about Iran 'getting the bomb' and know that Israel already has hundreds of nukes? How many Americans know that Iran had a secular, democratic government until it was overthrown in a coup by the U.S. and Britain?
Before you attack the population at large for not knowing shit, you might want to address the fact that the population at large is fed shit to begin with - don't be surprised with what comes out.
In an intelligence community that swore, on the record, that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons to add to his already formidable stockpile of conventional WMD's? That Hussein had operational ties to Bin Laddin?
If I was like David Broder and had a three year old's understanding of the world, that might be the case. In reality, I don't put much stock in trite witticisms that place all the importance on whatever partisan game one happens to play, but doesn't give a shit about what the actual results actually are.
Say Joe Lieberman is coming back from the golf course with John Boehner, and they see a blind lady trying to cross a busy street. Lieberman suggests they steal the old ladies purse. Boehner says they should steal her purse, then shove her down a flight of stairs before setting her on fire.
The Broder way:
What's important is that the Democrat and the Republican come to a bipartisan agreement on this, and meet each other half way. So the best solution is to rob the lady and push her down the stairs, but stop short of setting her on fire.
The 'Gridlock is Good' way:
It's a good thing that Joe and John are sitting around arguing about this, because the best result is when the government gets nothing done. So while the senator and the representative are bickering, the old lady tries to cross the street on her own and is hit by a bus.
The decent, non-head-up-the-ass way:
You help her get across the frikkin street already. Then you start recruiting primary challengers for Lieberman and Boehner, no matter which party you happen to be from.
Problem: nuclear power isn't ready for human hubris and greed, which puts profit above safety.
And that's before you get to the fact that nuclear is the most expensive power source, by far. Billions to construct plants and process ore. Billions more in insurance. Billions more in monitoring and containment costs.
And your underground storage facility will have to be monitored and maintained - for hundreds of years.
Nuclear power is nothing more than a shiny toy for pedants, and a corporate cash cow for an industry totally co-opted by regulatory capture .