It's like people have replaced trusting god with trusting government. More seriously, there is a strong split in the West between two Enlightenment schools, the French school of Rousseau (whose notable followers include Marx) and the English school of Locke and others. One of the differences (and there are many) between the schools is the role of government. You represent the French school, that government should create the society you want (and likely believe we would all want if we were not deluded/corrupt/greedy/liars/etc). The English school would argue that government's role is not to decide what society should be like, but to create and safe environment in which we can each work towards what we individually see as the betterment of society and ourselves.
The Volt is symbolic. It reminds people that we subsidize every GM and Chrystler vehicle through outstanding loans, and that we directly subsidize Volts via tax credits for buyers and indirectly through no bid government fleet purchases. It's not the Volt per se, but the government waste and interference it represents, that make the Volt subject to such mockery.
You're still full of shit. I have never heard that term use to refer to Obama, and I hang around with a lot of people who call him names. That strikes me as a "macaca" charge: and attempt to create racial animosity where none exists by inventing new terms or new meanings for them. Just like the Zimmerman case itself, only here it was NBC creating new meaning by deliberate selective editing.
It specifically says which LTE networks are supported. Is the new standard for ads now to be that only the largest print claims count? Not that I'm necessarily opposed to making ads harder to make, but do we really need a complete paragraph of text with all the claims and counterclaims and caveats and possibilities in every ad? Isn't there still some room for expecting people to research what they are getting, or at least read the entire ad?
Pick a winner so your friends/family/supporters will be helped. Subsidize it. Watch supply increase in response to subsidies, while demand stays flat. Oh, no, prices are dropping, which hurts those we picked to win. So tariffs and quotas and price fixing and whatever to drive prices back up. Watch supply fall apart completely. Blame "free markets". Repeat as needed.
Actually Bush's space plan was a complete, unworkable mess and Obama's got it mostly right (though the Senate's insistence on an SLS super rocket with no mission that's eating the rest of the NASA budget is no help). It always amazes me that the R's keep reaching for a socialist space program while Obama is taking a free market (relatively) approach.
Yes, and the first change you will see is much higher volatility in prices, followed by likely shortages. Then people like you will blame this on "market failure" and call for price fixing. If the government does that, then you'll see real shortages. Fundamentally, futures trading acts to stabilize the supply of goods and guarantee future flows.
Actually, yes we do. We have been electing people from the stupid party and the evil party for decades without throwing them out or demanding real systemic fixes. We have the ability to turn them out or force the changes, but have not done so. Therefore we deserve the consequences of our leadership's policies. If those consequences include suffering, then we deserve the suffering.
You do realize that Iran has been waging a slow war on the US since 1979, right? Look up, for instance, Khobar Towers. Also, both the Iranian and N Korean programs predate Bush's speech. But other than getting the facts wrong, great post. The ideological position was clearly stated.
The Pentagon (well, a specific part of it) is in charge of the classified side. This article is talking about the unclassified side. And the CIO is the only position in that part of the organization (well, along with his boss and up from there) that really changes with the administration. All the normal OCIO people are either civil service or contractors, and they span administrations.
Sure, someone else will take teir position on drugs already invented. But who's going to invent the next drug? When the risk is billions of dollars, lawsuits, ruined reputations and dead or maimed people, and the reward is making money only until the drug is reverse engineered (maybe a couple of years), then who will take risks on anything but the safest bets? You see the good now (cheaper known drugs) but not the cost later (fewer new drugs).
Slashdot Mirror
Show me a single use of the "word" macaca prior to that incident.
It's like people have replaced trusting god with trusting government. More seriously, there is a strong split in the West between two Enlightenment schools, the French school of Rousseau (whose notable followers include Marx) and the English school of Locke and others. One of the differences (and there are many) between the schools is the role of government. You represent the French school, that government should create the society you want (and likely believe we would all want if we were not deluded/corrupt/greedy/liars/etc). The English school would argue that government's role is not to decide what society should be like, but to create and safe environment in which we can each work towards what we individually see as the betterment of society and ourselves.
The Volt is symbolic. It reminds people that we subsidize every GM and Chrystler vehicle through outstanding loans, and that we directly subsidize Volts via tax credits for buyers and indirectly through no bid government fleet purchases. It's not the Volt per se, but the government waste and interference it represents, that make the Volt subject to such mockery.
Don't need any more. You've beclowned yourself enough.
You win.
You're still full of shit. I have never heard that term use to refer to Obama, and I hang around with a lot of people who call him names. That strikes me as a "macaca" charge: and attempt to create racial animosity where none exists by inventing new terms or new meanings for them. Just like the Zimmerman case itself, only here it was NBC creating new meaning by deliberate selective editing.
Zimmerman is admittedly a killer. It still is unclear whether he is a murderer.
And a lot else besides. Really, illegal to annoy someone? Really?!
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Not enough trained workers in the right place with the support infrastructure to house and feed them. Logistics is everything.
It specifically says which LTE networks are supported. Is the new standard for ads now to be that only the largest print claims count? Not that I'm necessarily opposed to making ads harder to make, but do we really need a complete paragraph of text with all the claims and counterclaims and caveats and possibilities in every ad? Isn't there still some room for expecting people to research what they are getting, or at least read the entire ad?
Pick a winner so your friends/family/supporters will be helped. Subsidize it. Watch supply increase in response to subsidies, while demand stays flat. Oh, no, prices are dropping, which hurts those we picked to win. So tariffs and quotas and price fixing and whatever to drive prices back up. Watch supply fall apart completely. Blame "free markets". Repeat as needed.
Actually Bush's space plan was a complete, unworkable mess and Obama's got it mostly right (though the Senate's insistence on an SLS super rocket with no mission that's eating the rest of the NASA budget is no help). It always amazes me that the R's keep reaching for a socialist space program while Obama is taking a free market (relatively) approach.
Yes, and the first change you will see is much higher volatility in prices, followed by likely shortages. Then people like you will blame this on "market failure" and call for price fixing. If the government does that, then you'll see real shortages. Fundamentally, futures trading acts to stabilize the supply of goods and guarantee future flows.
Go ahead, serve your no-knock warrant!
You seem to have a childish, cartoonish view of conservatives. You should get out more; it's good for you.
This is the danger of "fake but accurate", but kudos to them for setting the record straight as prominently as they set it crooked.
Actually, yes we do. We have been electing people from the stupid party and the evil party for decades without throwing them out or demanding real systemic fixes. We have the ability to turn them out or force the changes, but have not done so. Therefore we deserve the consequences of our leadership's policies. If those consequences include suffering, then we deserve the suffering.
You do realize that Iran has been waging a slow war on the US since 1979, right? Look up, for instance, Khobar Towers. Also, both the Iranian and N Korean programs predate Bush's speech. But other than getting the facts wrong, great post. The ideological position was clearly stated.
You could do the same thing, but cheaper. Seriously, how is this fundamentally different from legalized bribery?
The Pentagon (well, a specific part of it) is in charge of the classified side. This article is talking about the unclassified side. And the CIO is the only position in that part of the organization (well, along with his boss and up from there) that really changes with the administration. All the normal OCIO people are either civil service or contractors, and they span administrations.
Lots of people believe lots of things. Got anything better than faith to go on?
That would actually be against the law. The Presidential Records Act to be precise.
Um, there were CIOs for the EOP before Brook Colangelo.
Sure, someone else will take teir position on drugs already invented. But who's going to invent the next drug? When the risk is billions of dollars, lawsuits, ruined reputations and dead or maimed people, and the reward is making money only until the drug is reverse engineered (maybe a couple of years), then who will take risks on anything but the safest bets? You see the good now (cheaper known drugs) but not the cost later (fewer new drugs).