Because most of that pollution has come from western society, dumbass. Just how many Chinese and Indians do you think are chucking milk jugs and water bottles into the ocean?
Police time and resources are finite. There is no reason why the police officer can't take a pass at the kid playing imported games on his consol, and investigate child abuse reports instead.
the kid's parents for letting him out at night on a bike, without proper safety instruction.
Studies have shown that crossing a street from a sidewalk on a bike can be MORE dangerous than riding in a lane on the street, because drivers are less likely to see you. On "busy streets" in my town, the cops will give cyclists a ticket for riding on the sidewalk.
And regardless, the cop was doing nearly double the speed limit WITHOUT having his lights or siren on.
Only if it results in lower wages for the working stiff. If it means higher wages, companies will bring in illegal immigrants for the low skilled jobs, and H1-B's for the skilled positions.
See my post upthread. Men get paid more than women because men work more than women. It's that simple.
My cousin married a coworker-- both had the same accounting job but she made 8% less than he did and she was smarter (she's now the one teaching at a college and was promoted when working at a different firm.)
Yes, because men are always paid what they are worth, and never get shorted in favor of the boss's buddies and brown-nosers. See: George W. Bush and all the companies he was put in charge of based on his last name, despite his track record of running them all into the ground.
I'd like a citation for this, because I'm extremely skeptical that executive pay would be able to skew the statistics so heavily. There just aren't that many super-highly compensated executives out there to make a difference.
You're right to be suspicious, as the "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on straight up sophistry. It ignores the issue of experience (number of years worked) and, most importantly, completely ignores the issue of overtime. In the U.S., men worked 72,174 hours per week to 61,597 for women. (Stats are from the International of Labor Organization)
But even those stats don't tell the whole story. Women outnumber men in part time jobs, but men take the lead when it comes to full time employment. And when it comes to overtime, it's no contest whatsoever. More than 3x as many men put in 60+ hour weeks than women.
If Mary has three years more experience than Ann, puts in an average of 10 hours more per week than Ann, and is 9 times as likely to be killed or injured on the job as Ann - of course Mary would expect to paid more than Ann. Except when I say "Ann" I mean the average woman and by "Mary" I mean the average man.
Men get paid more...because men work more. It's that simple.
You *really* believe it's the money? Lol. Poor slob.
History says you're full of it. You think Donald Trump or Hugh Hefner have babes hanging off their arms at all times because of their rock hard abs or witty commentary?
No, every joint training maneuver that Israel does with the US has proven that Israel is the one without equal.
Distinction without a difference, as Israel gets its military funding, toys, and training from the U.S.
American military superiority is nowhere near as godlike and all-encompassing as the rednecks, hippies and conspiracy theorists would like to believe.
Yeah, it is, actually.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Because research takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant research that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because design takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant design that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant manufacturing that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
As opposed to the instant shakedown and bug testing that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
Yes, because a military of a sufficient size, sophistication, and threat level to us wouldn't be at all threatened by our frikkin nuclear weapons.
We've faced one, repeat, one invasion in the entire history of our country, and that was almost 200 years ago. We could spend 5% of our current defense budget for actual defense of our nation and be just fine.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
If we wouldn't have our air force crushed due to insufficient numbers then have our industry pounded into the ground by an uncontested enemy air force.
Yes, because some random enemy would just whip out a larger, technologically superior air force at the drop of a hat.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
The Raptors are irrelevant because they have not been used in the current conflict.
Yeah....annnnnd? Why pay billions for something that's not even used when we're involved in two wars?
We'll just wait and whip up a defense real quick as soon as the next conflict surfaces - no point on being prepared ahead of time!
We went from spending a pittance on our military in the 30's to winning two major wars on different fronts and developing the atomic bomb. Yes, we can ramp up military production if an actual need arose.
I would advocate building whatever the military says they need to keep us safe.
How about giving the military what we actually need to keep us safe? We're surrounded by the world's two largest oceans and two large friendly nations. A defense budget that's 5% of our current size would be perfectly adequate to give us actual defense.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement and, eventually, destruction at the hands of the people who don't care about "global understanding" and do care about taking what you have for themselves.
False dichotomy. We don't need to spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year to intervene in third world genocides.
But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement
Wow, that's stupid. If you're for "peace-and-love", naturally you're going to be against brutal dictatorships and ethnic cleansing. It was the "peace-and-love" types that ended apartheid in South Africa, not the jingoists (who if anything supported the government at the time).
Some parts of the human race only understand fear. To those you must be the biggest, baddest, scariest motherfucker on the block.
Which, as you should have learned in Vietnam or from Al Queda, means jack when they don't give a shit about how much you're overcompensating for something, and are perfectly willing to die for their cause.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
I am within a couple miles of a hospital, and a plethora of excellent doctors. An hour or two from major research hospitals.
I'm within two miles of an Air Guard post with fighter jets. Doesn't mean I can use them.
there is no lack of healthcare in the US. There is a lack of funds to pay for healthcare.
Distinction without a difference.
When my daughter is sick, I take her to the doctor, I pay the doctor to give his diagnoses and get a prescription for medication.
And when your insurance company delays & denies treatment for your daughter in the name of higher profits? What then?
Why should the government pay for healthcare?
Why shouldn't the government pay for healthcare? It provides better treatment for far less money.
Where in the US Constitution were we garunteed government sponsored healthcare?
Where in the US Constitution are there provisions for having the Air Force, NORAD, spy satellites, or any intelligence agency not a part of the Army or the Navy?
I am against completely the idea that the Government should be in control of who, how, and when I receive healthcare.
A canard with zero basis in reality. As opposed to a private insurance industry that very much is in control of "who, how, and when" you receive care - while taking the money you pay in in premiums and using it to try and find ways to deny you care while paying their CEO $10 million or more per year.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Drop dead.
Pull your head out.
EUROPE created the mess, not the US. Woodrow Willison was against the reperations.
Which changes his point...how exactly...that we keep using jingoistic meddling to fight bad guys created by jingoistic meddling 20-30 years ago?
Translation: your wingnut BS got shot down. Again. So now it was just a "joke".
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
The only reason other people can "be cool with people" is there is one military hyperpower. If we were "cool with people" too eight zillion wars would break out instantly - balance of power, WWI again.
Yes, because Africa, South America, the Middle East, and South Asia have been such serene utopia's under America's military dominance.
Not.
balance of power, WWI again
Under the No One Could Have Seen it Coming defense, maybe. Which means, of course, that plenty of people that aren't Republicans saw the problem a mile away years in advance, as much today as in the 1930's. If say, China started to become a belligerent power and build up it's military a la Germany 70 years ago - people would notice. Remember that we managed to go from spending a pittance on our military to winning two major wars on separate fronts while developing the atomic bomb.
Spending trillions of dollars every few years on "defense" spending is asinine and indefensible.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
So you think that America would be better off for that?
As long as we're throwing out stupid questions...would OJ be better off if he hadn't murdered a couple of people? And before some wingnut starts whining about how this is a lame comparison, the U.S. has tortured about 100 people to death - that we know of.
America has certainly done a lot of damage around the world, but they've also done a lot of good.
Irrelevant. Just because you do the dishes and wash the car doesn't mean your parents are going to let you off for starting the cat on fire.
At the end, some nation, somewhere, is going to have the strongest military. For all my problems with America, I can't pick a different nation I'd rather see as the strongest.
Or maybe...just maybe...we could have a world where no single nation has a dominant military. Any morally justified military action can be done as a coalition.
For every Saddam that America is damned for warring against, there is an African genocide like Rwanda it is not being damned for ignoring.
Yeah, you go and attack that straw man! Get him! Saying that we could get by with but a fraction of our military spending is not calling for a return to 1930's isolationism, but of course you knew that already.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
I said that they will hate America regardless of the amount of meddling it does.
Why. There are countries with higher per-capita GDP's yet don't have but a fraction of a percentage of the animosity that's directed towards the U.S.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
But that wasn't what the parent said. You were responding to this:Do you really believe that the world will stop hating America if America stops meddling...?
Reading comprehension much? He answered that question in his first sentence.
But intervening against state sponsored genocide is NOT an isolationist policy, it's an intervention, meaning WAR.
Who said anything about isolationism, Captain False Dichotomy?
Make no mistake though, if America had instead ignored Saddam they would have hated America.
But not the other 190 nations in the U.N., JUST America...
There are millions of Rwandans who do not hate America for it's interventions, but instead for it's FAILURE to intervene. The bitter part is if America had intervened in Rwanada, every dead Rwandan after America's intervention would be blamed on that intervention. Don't believe me? Look at how the death tolls in Iraq are presented
Boy did you just fly off the rails into crazy town. OF COURSE the U.S. is responsible for the Iraq's broken state, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES WHO BROKE IT. The country was invaded on WMD lies, and the neocons had no post-invasion plan whatsoever. They thought it would be a six week operation, and pulled the standard No One Could Have Seen It Coming excuse when the country dissolved into a sectarian conflict that goes back centuries, as any history professor could have told them.
But how many would love America for it's role in WW2 if it had NOT intervened?
1. That undercuts the "they'll hate us anyway" excuse 2. Apples to irrelevant oranges
Getting into a war to fight a country responsible for 50 million+ deaths not only isn't on the same page as wars of choice or CIA-backed coups, it's not on the same frikkin planet.
Some other inconvenient facts for you: we've faced only one (1) invasion in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. And pre-WWII, the United States was spending a pittance on national defense - and yet we ramped up quickly enough to win two major wars in two theaters. Finally, we're surrounded on two sides by the world's two largest oceans, and on the other two sides by two large, friendly nations.
Our defense needs are a fraction of what we're spending right now.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Even if everyone in the US unanimously decided that we were no longer going to meddle in international affairs other nations will inevitably drag us back into them due to the simple fact that we're an economic superpower. It's unavoidable.
Funny, the rest of the G7 nations manage just fine without spending more on military hardware then the rest of the world combined. On the other hand, there's all those "lesser" economies that have had to put up with so many invasions, like Australia and Iceland....
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Isolationism has been tried. Appeasement has been tried.
And now your lame straw man has been tried as well. Ray Charles could see that the parent said jack about isolationism or appeasement. And Ray Charles is blind.
And dead.
The most politically and financially stable century anyone has ever seen.
Sphincter says what? 60 million people died in WWII alone.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
The last time this country was attacked by another country was WW II and that was because we had effectively blockaded Japan.
And it should also be mentioned that we've had a grand total of one (1) invasion in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. We're surrounded on two sides by the world's two largest oceans, and surrounded on the other two sides by large, friendly nations. Our actual defense needs are pretty damned small.
Looking at history, it should be European countries spending extravagant amounts of their GDP's on defense. Yet they don't, and have managed not to be wiped out by unnamed enemy xyz.
Slashdot Mirror
Because most of that pollution has come from western society, dumbass. Just how many Chinese and Indians do you think are chucking milk jugs and water bottles into the ocean?
Police time and resources are finite. There is no reason why the police officer can't take a pass at the kid playing imported games on his consol, and investigate child abuse reports instead.
Indeed. There are few things that bother the establishment more than the idea of holding the powerful accountable for their actions.
the kid's parents for letting him out at night on a bike, without proper safety instruction.
Studies have shown that crossing a street from a sidewalk on a bike can be MORE dangerous than riding in a lane on the street, because drivers are less likely to see you. On "busy streets" in my town, the cops will give cyclists a ticket for riding on the sidewalk.
And regardless, the cop was doing nearly double the speed limit WITHOUT having his lights or siren on.
Low taxes can have high costs.
I disagree with your "women don't work as hard" theory.
It's reality. Men put in 3x as many 60+ hour workweeks as do women, and are 9 times as likely to be killed or injured on the job.
It's set by supply-and-demand.
Only if it results in lower wages for the working stiff. If it means higher wages, companies will bring in illegal immigrants for the low skilled jobs, and H1-B's for the skilled positions.
See my post upthread. Men get paid more than women because men work more than women. It's that simple.
My cousin married a coworker-- both had the same accounting job but she made 8% less than he did and she was smarter (she's now the one teaching at a college and was promoted when working at a different firm.)
Yes, because men are always paid what they are worth, and never get shorted in favor of the boss's buddies and brown-nosers.
See: George W. Bush and all the companies he was put in charge of based on his last name, despite his track record of running them all into the ground.
I'd like a citation for this, because I'm extremely skeptical that executive pay would be able to skew the statistics so heavily. There just aren't that many super-highly compensated executives out there to make a difference.
You're right to be suspicious, as the "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on straight up sophistry. It ignores the issue of experience (number of years worked) and, most importantly, completely ignores the issue of overtime. In the U.S., men worked 72,174 hours per week to 61,597 for women. (Stats are from the International of Labor Organization)
But even those stats don't tell the whole story. Women outnumber men in part time jobs, but men take the lead when it comes to full time employment. And when it comes to overtime, it's no contest whatsoever. More than 3x as many men put in 60+ hour weeks than women.
If Mary has three years more experience than Ann, puts in an average of 10 hours more per week than Ann, and is 9 times as likely to be killed or injured on the job as Ann - of course Mary would expect to paid more than Ann. Except when I say "Ann" I mean the average woman and by "Mary" I mean the average man.
Men get paid more...because men work more. It's that simple.
You *really* believe it's the money? Lol. Poor slob.
History says you're full of it. You think Donald Trump or Hugh Hefner have babes hanging off their arms at all times because of their rock hard abs or witty commentary?
No, every joint training maneuver that Israel does with the US has proven that Israel is the one without equal.
Distinction without a difference, as Israel gets its military funding, toys, and training from the U.S.
American military superiority is nowhere near as godlike and all-encompassing as the rednecks, hippies and conspiracy theorists would like to believe.
Yeah, it is, actually.
Because research takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant research that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because design takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant design that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
As opposed to the instant manufacturing that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
As opposed to the instant shakedown and bug testing that our enemies would do, hidden from the view of the CIA and the NSA.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
Yes, because a military of a sufficient size, sophistication, and threat level to us wouldn't be at all threatened by our frikkin nuclear weapons.
We've faced one, repeat, one invasion in the entire history of our country, and that was almost 200 years ago. We could spend 5% of our current defense budget for actual defense of our nation and be just fine.
If we wouldn't have our air force crushed due to insufficient numbers then have our industry pounded into the ground by an uncontested enemy air force.
Yes, because some random enemy would just whip out a larger, technologically superior air force at the drop of a hat.
The Raptors are irrelevant because they have not been used in the current conflict.
Yeah....annnnnd? Why pay billions for something that's not even used when we're involved in two wars?
We'll just wait and whip up a defense real quick as soon as the next conflict surfaces - no point on being prepared ahead of time!
We went from spending a pittance on our military in the 30's to winning two major wars on different fronts and developing the atomic bomb. Yes, we can ramp up military production if an actual need arose.
I would advocate building whatever the military says they need to keep us safe.
How about giving the military what we actually need to keep us safe? We're surrounded by the world's two largest oceans and two large friendly nations. A defense budget that's 5% of our current size would be perfectly adequate to give us actual defense.
But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement and, eventually, destruction at the hands of the people who don't care about "global understanding" and do care about taking what you have for themselves.
False dichotomy. We don't need to spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year to intervene in third world genocides.
But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement
Wow, that's stupid. If you're for "peace-and-love", naturally you're going to be against brutal dictatorships and ethnic cleansing. It was the "peace-and-love" types that ended apartheid in South Africa, not the jingoists (who if anything supported the government at the time).
Some parts of the human race only understand fear. To those you must be the biggest, baddest, scariest motherfucker on the block.
Which, as you should have learned in Vietnam or from Al Queda, means jack when they don't give a shit about how much you're overcompensating for something, and are perfectly willing to die for their cause.
I am within a couple miles of a hospital, and a plethora of excellent doctors. An hour or two from major research hospitals.
I'm within two miles of an Air Guard post with fighter jets. Doesn't mean I can use them.
there is no lack of healthcare in the US. There is a lack of funds to pay for healthcare.
Distinction without a difference.
When my daughter is sick, I take her to the doctor, I pay the doctor to give his diagnoses and get a prescription for medication.
And when your insurance company delays & denies treatment for your daughter in the name of higher profits? What then?
Why should the government pay for healthcare?
Why shouldn't the government pay for healthcare? It provides better treatment for far less money.
Where in the US Constitution were we garunteed government sponsored healthcare?
Where in the US Constitution are there provisions for having the Air Force, NORAD, spy satellites, or any intelligence agency not a part of the Army or the Navy?
I am against completely the idea that the Government should be in control of who, how, and when I receive healthcare.
A canard with zero basis in reality. As opposed to a private insurance industry that very much is in control of "who, how, and when" you receive care - while taking the money you pay in in premiums and using it to try and find ways to deny you care while paying their CEO $10 million or more per year.
Drop dead.
Pull your head out.
EUROPE created the mess, not the US. Woodrow Willison was against the reperations.
Which changes his point...how exactly...that we keep using jingoistic meddling to fight bad guys created by jingoistic meddling 20-30 years ago?
That was a joke, silly.
Translation: your wingnut BS got shot down. Again. So now it was just a "joke".
The only reason other people can "be cool with people" is there is one military hyperpower. If we were "cool with people" too eight zillion wars would break out instantly - balance of power, WWI again.
Yes, because Africa, South America, the Middle East, and South Asia have been such serene utopia's under America's military dominance.
Not.
balance of power, WWI again
Under the No One Could Have Seen it Coming defense, maybe. Which means, of course, that plenty of people that aren't Republicans saw the problem a mile away years in advance, as much today as in the 1930's. If say, China started to become a belligerent power and build up it's military a la Germany 70 years ago - people would notice. Remember that we managed to go from spending a pittance on our military to winning two major wars on separate fronts while developing the atomic bomb.
Spending trillions of dollars every few years on "defense" spending is asinine and indefensible.
So you think that America would be better off for that?
As long as we're throwing out stupid questions...would OJ be better off if he hadn't murdered a couple of people? And before some wingnut starts whining about how this is a lame comparison, the U.S. has tortured about 100 people to death - that we know of.
America has certainly done a lot of damage around the world, but they've also done a lot of good.
Irrelevant. Just because you do the dishes and wash the car doesn't mean your parents are going to let you off for starting the cat on fire.
At the end, some nation, somewhere, is going to have the strongest military. For all my problems with America, I can't pick a different nation I'd rather see as the strongest.
Or maybe...just maybe...we could have a world where no single nation has a dominant military. Any morally justified military action can be done as a coalition.
For every Saddam that America is damned for warring against, there is an African genocide like Rwanda it is not being damned for ignoring.
Yeah, you go and attack that straw man! Get him! Saying that we could get by with but a fraction of our military spending is not calling for a return to 1930's isolationism, but of course you knew that already.
I said that they will hate America regardless of the amount of meddling it does.
Why. There are countries with higher per-capita GDP's yet don't have but a fraction of a percentage of the animosity that's directed towards the U.S.
But that wasn't what the parent said. You were responding to this:Do you really believe that the world will stop hating America if America stops meddling...?
Reading comprehension much? He answered that question in his first sentence.
But intervening against state sponsored genocide is NOT an isolationist policy, it's an intervention, meaning WAR.
Who said anything about isolationism, Captain False Dichotomy?
Make no mistake though, if America had instead ignored Saddam they would have hated America.
But not the other 190 nations in the U.N., JUST America...
There are millions of Rwandans who do not hate America for it's interventions, but instead for it's FAILURE to intervene. The bitter part is if America had intervened in Rwanada, every dead Rwandan after America's intervention would be blamed on that intervention. Don't believe me? Look at how the death tolls in Iraq are presented
Boy did you just fly off the rails into crazy town. OF COURSE the U.S. is responsible for the Iraq's broken state, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES WHO BROKE IT. The country was invaded on WMD lies, and the neocons had no post-invasion plan whatsoever. They thought it would be a six week operation, and pulled the standard No One Could Have Seen It Coming excuse when the country dissolved into a sectarian conflict that goes back centuries, as any history professor could have told them.
But how many would love America for it's role in WW2 if it had NOT intervened?
1. That undercuts the "they'll hate us anyway" excuse
2. Apples to irrelevant oranges
Getting into a war to fight a country responsible for 50 million+ deaths not only isn't on the same page as wars of choice or CIA-backed coups, it's not on the same frikkin planet.
Some other inconvenient facts for you: we've faced only one (1) invasion in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. And pre-WWII, the United States was spending a pittance on national defense - and yet we ramped up quickly enough to win two major wars in two theaters. Finally, we're surrounded on two sides by the world's two largest oceans, and on the other two sides by two large, friendly nations.
Our defense needs are a fraction of what we're spending right now.
Even if everyone in the US unanimously decided that we were no longer going to meddle in international affairs other nations will inevitably drag us back into them due to the simple fact that we're an economic superpower. It's unavoidable.
Funny, the rest of the G7 nations manage just fine without spending more on military hardware then the rest of the world combined. On the other hand, there's all those "lesser" economies that have had to put up with so many invasions, like Australia and Iceland....
Isolationism has been tried.
Appeasement has been tried.
And now your lame straw man has been tried as well. Ray Charles could see that the parent said jack about isolationism or appeasement. And Ray Charles is blind.
And dead.
The most politically and financially stable century anyone has ever seen.
Sphincter says what? 60 million people died in WWII alone.
The last time this country was attacked by another country was WW II and that was because we had effectively blockaded Japan.
And it should also be mentioned that we've had a grand total of one (1) invasion in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. We're surrounded on two sides by the world's two largest oceans, and surrounded on the other two sides by large, friendly nations. Our actual defense needs are pretty damned small.
Looking at history, it should be European countries spending extravagant amounts of their GDP's on defense. Yet they don't, and have managed not to be wiped out by unnamed enemy xyz.