It's difficult to argue though, that the tax payer should subsidize exploratory ventures for companies which make some of the largest profits on the planet. In short, they could afford these ventures on their own with no help from the taxpayer. It is to their benefit to keep the taxpayer addicted to oil as long as possible. About the only karmic result of all this is that the oil industry will eventually have to expand into other energy sources or face extinction.
There's really two parts to answer this. First, it's not really all that difficult when you understand the pork barrel spending. 70% or more of the subsidies is designed to keep the oil companies in an area in which a congress person would benefit from. Some of it happens to do with keeping jobs, others is keeping revenue from well leases and so on. I completely understand what you are saying though, but if you approach it already knowing that the oil companies don't need it, you can start to see who does.
The second part, It is not only a karmic results, it's what some of the subsidies are designed to do. The oil industry already has the distribution network there, the processing capabilities and expertise, it's just a matter of jobs being kept to get them to transition close to how it is now, verses off shoring everything. There is a large push (concealed within some of the subsidies) to get oil companies into alternative energy sources sooner then later. Perhaps much sooner then karma alone could accomplish.
As a taxpayer, I say the sooner the better. Total dependency on an energy source that we do not and cannot control is borderline insanity.
Yes, I agree. The problem is, currently, we don't have a comparable replacement. What this and other stories seem to glance past, (maybe it's just the commentators), is that when we inflate energy costs and alternatives not otherwise become viable, it crashes our economy. Sure, there was a lost more to it, but we can't discount the impact that high prices for energy played into it. It sucked the free money away from everyone.
That said, I happen to agree that some government incentives for alternate fuels is absolutely necessary. Sometimes they do 'hit the jackpot' so to speak, and if such ventures into solar prove to be a feasible alternative fuel, then I would consider that money well spent.
I agree too. Except I think we need more of an investment into the raw sciences to make it happen then into an industry. Either way, something happening overnight will not come out well. It will take 20 or more years to replace the majority of oil dependent embedded infrastructure as soon as something is figured out.Cars, machinery, HVAC systems, all need to see the end of a useful life instead of expecting people to just throw them out for the next big thing.
They do? Your right, because they can explore other areas of business and develop techniques to deal with it in the future without a large loss. However, that doesn't mean they would continue to do so if they were removed.
I didn't say there wasn't a benefit for them. I said the benefit wouldn't effect their profit or prices if it was removed. Instead, they would just go back to what's normally profitable until such time prices are high enough for them to get into those areas on their own.
That's somewhat of a misnomer. The subsidies are mostly tricks to get the oil industry to invest in areas that are not profitable for them and they wouldn't otherwise be at.
In more plain terms, if the subsidies didn't exist, oil companies would not miss them, they simply would not be doing some of the things they are now at the request of the government. Eliminating those subsidies would have no real noticeable effect on price or profit.
No.. our industry has been so regulated and people demand so much money for simple tasks, that it's cheaper to get things from other cultures.
It's not so much a matter of continuous improvement, it's a matter of affordability. I can generally buy 3 china made products that last 40% of the time one American made product might last for less costs then one home grown equivalent.
The trucking system pays a hefty fuel tax for the use of those interstate roads. A single driver truck will average about 3000 miles a week over 50 weeks. That truck will pay close to $14,000 a year in IFTA (fuel taxes). This is not counting registration fees, permits, state surety bonds, or anything else associated with it. When you consider team drivers that will average about 5500-6000 miles per week, that number jumps quite a bit (over 20k).
and yes, I used conservative mileage estimates there. when I drove, I averaged close to 3500 a week for most of the year (winter caused it to go down to 3000).
The trucking industry more then pays for it's use of the roads. The problem is that the money they pay, gets spent elsewhere. This is no different then regular gas taxes either. for instance, a few years ago, The town I live closest to, ended up spending most of the gas tax on a rural bike path that doesn't even come close to any business centers in the town. They then complained they they didn't have enough money to fix the roads. the state, funneled a lot of the road use tax money to other programs too. Even the feds take the money and put it in other areas.
You would be more accurate in saying the government is subsidized by the trucking industry.
Well, who is more acclimated to state if someone is a pedophile, the kids who are in contact with someone on a daily basis or adults making accusations?
Here is the difference, when kids make the claim, society assumes they have some first hand knowledge as in they are the victim since the crime is about underage kids. when an adult makes the claim, there isn't really any first hand assumption outside of people already vested in their integrity believing their word. But because the child is the subject of the victimization, often an investigation is conducted on their behalf at the accusation.
It's something that is completely different when a kid makes the claim verses when an adult makes the claim.
Shh.. I don't want them to figure out why I have yet one more reason not to use gnome. If they don't get it through self discovery, they won't learn anything.
Even if people do need more screen real estate for other apps, it doesn't negate the need to re-size the windows they are shown in. In fact, it sort of supports that idea as you will now need multiple windows sizes at their discretion.
I take from your tone you were trying to be sarcastic in pointing to how the parent was wrong. However, I believe you proved his point in that one size windows doesn't fit all. Just in case you're confused, he didn't say all anyone needed was 80 characters, he said there's a reason why we need to re-size the windows regularly.
Well, that's sort of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe doctrine.
I'm not going to pretend that the US is innocent, but the interactions with Tripoli happened in the first 20 years of our existence. Jefferson was the third president if I remember correctly.
But back to the Monroe doctrine, This was a result of Europe interfering with south and central America. It's also on of the reasons why half speak Spanish and the other half, French (or dialects of that). Anyways, those have been somewhat abused since it's been a long standing practice that what's in our interest is their interest by default (as we basically told Europe, if you mess with them, you are messing with us).
Yes, I can see how they would think some things about the US. We have intentionally interfered in their politics when it was to out benefit. If we stayed out, Cuba would likely either be part of Mexico or part of spain right now (as we originally helped free them from Spain's rule). But all that seems separate and secondary to Carter's screw-ups with the search for oil and the IMF, or Regan's war on drugs, or Clinton's move to put the US back on the world oil market, not to mention various moves within the countries themselves that contributed to that.
Out of curiosity, do you know that the first off continent marine battle was against Muslims? Or that the reason the US created a standing navy was because of them to? This was a priority done by Thomas Jefferson once he became president because when as a diplomat stationed in France, he asked the ambassador to Tripoli what gave them the rights to pirate our Atlantic shores and take our people captive, and the reply was Allah gave them the right.
This also marked our first allied interaction with Kuwait. While Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire, they were a major port port of commerce to the Americas and allowed US naval and marines safe harbor for preparations against out attacks on Tripoli.
You can say that it's all Grey and lost in the details. But that doesn't make it true. There is a pattern of behavior that has transgress beyond the crusades.
And no, I'm not going to say it's the religion that causes it. It's most likely man doing things while using the religion as a shield.
Actually, they were tracking him in an investigation to someone he knew and he fit the profile because of his trips home. It threw red flags, he got investigated and cleared.
This all would have been done without his knowledge if the repair shop wouldn't have notices the tracker.
Anyways, I doubt there was anything illegal about this as at the time it happened, it was legal to do that.
It depends on how much they know and where it is at.
If they are hands off, I don't enter, it's up to the members posting and they remove anything brought to their attention- reporting obvious law violations to the authorities, then there is a good chance they aren't liable at all. But if they know and do nothing, or encourage it, they can be very liable.
Chances are, the forum would be considered possession of criminal tools in the act of whatever related crime and some sort of conspiracy charge to commit the crime. Already in regular crimes, if I hand you a crow bar knowing that you are going to use it to break into a store or smash someone with it, those principles apply. So it would depend a lot on the jurisdiction, the laws within, and how intelligent the prosecutor is. You might have all those elements and as prosecutor that is completely dumbfounded because the word cyber doesn't appear in any of the existing laws.
Congress and the justice department aren't part of the DOD. The DOD was not his only avenue of redress.
Anyways, your link intrigued me so I followed it to the source. Here are some things that the link failed to point out.
The case substantiation rate for full investigations of reprisal allegations was 20 percent and 15 percent for investigations of senior official misconduct.
So of the 600 claims of reprisal, less then 1 in 5 were true. This means for every 1 true claim, 4 were false. But it breaks it down further with,
On March 31, 2010, DoD IG had 382 open cases involving allegations of whistleblower reprisal filed by military service members, Defense contractor employees, and non-appropriated fund employees. About 75 percent of those cases are processed by service IGs prior to being forwarded to DoD IG for final approval. During the reporting period, DoD IG and the service IGs received 271 complaints of whistleblower reprisal and closed 274 cases. Of the 274 cases, 220 were closed after preliminary analysis determined further investigation was not warranted and 54 were closed after investigation. Of the 54 cases investigated, 11 (20 percent) contained one or more substantiated allegations of whistleblower reprisal.
I think this speaks for itself, but in case it's not exactly clear, the one in five is from the number 54.
Oh yea, one more thing. The 20 and 15 percent differences. That's because the link you reference groups all claims of reprisal together. They are actually recorded separately when senior officials were investigated. 257 cases were with senior officials, 382 cases were with all other aspects of the DOD including defense contractors. Of the investigations into senior officials that were actually warranted, the "topics such as alleged violation of the Privacy Act, improper official travel, reprisal, sexual harassment and improper acceptance of a gift from a subordinate", were covered so it includes a lot more then just reprisals for whistle blowing.
The actual report cited in the link doesn't exactly paint the picture the link you provided does. It ignored plenty of details and attempted to lump complaints not even associated with reprisals on whistle blowers as if they were. Presumably, this was in order to bolster their case- whatever that may be. It may surprise you to know that the TPM site is basically a democrat schill group with stated goals that a united democrat front will deny republicans office. When encountering sites like that, You should always check the source and weed out the bullshit before taking it as fact. And that goes just as well for republican, or tea party or whatever sites making claims.
The oath soldiers take says nothing about the ideals of the US constitution. Stop reading into things and turning it into something it isn't.
Th oath the soldiers take goes as follows.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
There is another one, almost identical with the addition of governor for the national guard members.
Now regardless of what you think about what manning did or what was supposedly exposed, there were legitimate avenues of redress he could have taken. These avenues ranged from speaking to his commanding officer, speaking to a jag officer, speaking to his congressman or senator, or even the department of justice. He did none of this. Instead, he grabbed a bunch of documents, some video and other things that he most likely didn't even read and release them to the detriment of the country and the post he was serving under.
The way he went about things is somewhat like shooting a person to stop their broken foot from bothering them. He may have achieve what you think the goal was, but he went about it all the wrong way.
When you are invaded, you are at war. An ex political faction of Afghanistan was driven out of power by a war we commence. That same faction, the one that gave safe harbor to Al Qeada, is trying to retake the territory.
In short, we are at war technically as much as any other way we have been in.
I have no idea why Republicans came up with this idea that terrorism should be fought with armies,
Probably because a: you don't understand why we went to war, and b: fighting terrorism with law enforcement turned into 4 hijacked planes and about 3000 innocent people dead who did little more then showing up to work.
You are an ignorant fool. First, Rush was on vacation in Hawaii. He didn't fly there from Florida or new york because he was having chest pains. He was already there. It's completely stupid to suggest that someone jumps on a plane and cherry picks some state thousands of miles away because of an emergency condition.
Not to mention the conservative, cut-spending-now republican convention whose top topics were against nationwide healthcare was in Hawaii. And they totally ignored Hawaii's situation.
National health care has nothing to do with Hawaii. The health care in Hawaii, outside of minimum standards prescribed by the FDA, is completely Hawaii's jurisdiction. That's where the public health care belongs too. In the state, not the federal government.
So either these guys publically disagree with nationwide healthcare and privately love it, or they have no clue how to manage anything. Either way, you wouldn't want them leading the country.
Or, you just don't know what you are talking about and letting everyone on the world know it too. And if all your politics are this clueless, I'm not sure anyone should listen to you about it ever again.
I love these Americans that take a single incomplete second hand experience with Canadian health care and immediately believe that it extrapolates to the entire system. The reality is that the vast, VAST majority of Canadians don't ever go to the U.S. for health care, and most of us are perfectly fine with the wait times. Personally, I've had several broken bones, had several family members with cancer and heart problems, and I've never had a problem with the wait times. In fact, I don't even know anyone that has ever had an urgent health care issue that wasn't taken care of promptly.
Your right, south and central America are far more likely spots for Canadian medical tourists. Just like India and Taiwan are popular with the UK's.
And no, it's not a single instance extrapolated, it's a single instance that is easy to remember because it's a politicians who bailed on the system.
If our health care system was so bad, you'd think we'd see more outrage among actual Canadians instead of just a steady stream of outrage and rhetoric coming from American "conservatives."
You mean like the wealth being made from wait insurance? You know, the insurance policy that quite a few Canadians are purchasing that guarantees they will be taken out of the country for treatment if necessary?
I could see your point if health insurance wasn't still being purchased and sold in Canada to Canadians.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans couldn't afford the treatment that was given to Danny Williams, and under the American system they'd either have to put the next few generations of their family into tremendous debt or just forgo treatment and die.
Wrong. the medical bills would simply be levied against their estate and their kids wouldn't get any inheritance. What wasn't paid would be written off in taxes and keep their paid services per charitable services at a rate in which they continue to receive the non-profit tax deductions.
There are enough programs out there that it's likely it would have been paid for in the first place. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating the myth that people are left to die because they can't afford something. It's illegal for any hospital to refuse emergency medical treatment to anyone on the bases of their ability to pay.
The parent may have implied a couple incorrect notions, you certainly did. Let's take a chance and see what happens if our notions are actually correct before spouting them. I'm betting that improvement in both places could be possible.
You might be using some selective remembrance there.
The Canadian health-care system is trash talked to. In fact, one of the funniest thrashings of the Canadian health care system is the fact that a superior court ruled that Quebec's ban on wait time insurance was immoral because the wait times for treatments were causing people to die or be permanently disfigured by their conditions.
France and other larger countries are typically ignored because they aren't thrown up as models of how it can work. This is mostly because the UK and Canada are more similar to the US. When people claim it can work, they know the population in the US won't stand for the differences between the US and France in the government of the economy and other areas. It's implicit that their systems works because of things that are radically different which we won't accept.
It's not just the quakes, they will subside when the work stops. The much bigger issue is the contamination. It spreads far and wide. And I don't care about the "industry". Somebody else will quickly fill the void left by those who shut down. Like you said, we still need the resource. The next guy that takes over production will be a bit more circumspect and respectful, or he too, will be put out.
Well, that's true until you create a situation where only the rich can afford something and the rich are now poor. Eventually, it will cost so much for anything needing those resources that no one will have it.
You might say, well they will have enough sense to not let it get that bad. But as the industries improve and get better, so does the mark in which we gauge them at. It's happened twice in the last 40 years that I can remember. It simply won't stop until it's not being used.
Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Easy to say from a thousand miles distance. "The needs of the many..." "The greater good.." Despicable rationalizations that are responsible for so much human suffering. You're assuming "zero sum"... That no longer applies in today's world. All of our resource problems, the pollution, the "shortages", all of it can be traced back to bad/corrupt management, bureaucratic turf wars, etc. (Perfect example? India. They bury themselves in paperwork which all ends up in the trash with a simple bribe, making half the country look like a land fill) Nature no longer presents a serious challenge. We can all live like kings without having to wreck the place.
I'm not sure why it went to Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Anyways.. I'm not assuming a zero sum gain, I'm acknowledging the reality that free people want things outside their reach and often settle for what's inside it. People that have things don't want to give them up typically without getting something in return. The reality is, when people can't afford something, they either steal it, asked for help getting it, or make do with what they got. A lot of times it ends up going to making do. And that means reverting back to whatever was the last best thing or inventing something new.
The corruption issue and major pollution and all can be addressed. But I do not think it will allow people to live like kings. Well, not without forcing others to do things they don't want to do.
Last you heard, huh? Is it a lot of effort to keep yourself ignorant?
It's actually pretty easy. All I have to do is watch you go on a frothing at the mouth rant about something that I already acknowledged and said was subject to interpretation, then look for anything else important that was added to the discussion. Turns out there isn't so I'm just as ignorant as I was before you wasted electrons showing the world how one sided you are.
That was two journalist, a bunch of civilians, and the maiming of two children. Not "one journalist". That was a war crime using armor-piercing rounds to slaughter civilians, journalists and children.
Yea, and no one cared one bit or knew about it until it was known that a journalist was killed. Even the video, yes the edited versions that make it look like they knew he was unarmed too, refer to the one journalist in the titles and mentioning of the situation. It's not like those other people disappeared, but it's perfectly logical to refer to it as the journalist getting killed situation.
"No big deal". To you. Because you don't care, and because you'll excuse anything, so long as you think it can benefit you. Gotta keep that oil flowing, don't cares about the blood.
Your right. I don't care in the sense that it was in the middle of a war, they were in a conflict zone, and a mistake happened. It's not some big evil thing like it's been made out as at all. Is it a tragic mistake that I wish wasn't repeated, Yes. But that doesn't make it "wrong doings" warranting the release of shit tons of information and documents completely not related to it.
But it's obvious you are just letting your ignorance and emotions, probably combines with some inaccurate preconceived notions, troll your logic so I probably shouldn't have replied at all. You spent the better half of a paragraph attempting to make me recognize more about a situation I already knew about. Then you pretend to know what I think in turn when you can't even grasp referencing to something in shorthand. But what tops it all off is your notion that it's about the oil flowing. Grow up and grab a new argument. Perhaps this time, one that grounded in reality.
Please tell me, and I'm serious about this, what wrong doings has leaking all that information uncovered? Last I heard, it was the accidental but unsympathetic killing of a journalist and how US diplomats talk crude behind people's back.
The journalist is subject to interpretation and plenty of people have edited the video to their interpretation, but as far as I know, the rest of the leaks had little to do with any wrong doings.
I could see your point otherwise. Hell, I would probably be championing it with you. But I don't see any massive wrong doings that were uncovered.
Nobody is jealous of you, dum-ass. Nobody. (not you, AC, the gp, sumdumass) We all know what personal defect motivates you to pretend that anybody is jealous of you, in order to feel better about yourself. Most people just pity you too much to say it. I don't have time for pity nor for the likes of you.
Yea.. and you continue to get mad at what I do. Look, you even resorted to name calling. I was actually trying to make a point. I guess It was well over your head.
The bottom line is that people who claim to be doing something that limit's their freedom, costs more, or makes them feel good about what they are doing because it "helps the environment" are people who did it the way regular people have done it and changed. And the majority of those people who changed, try to punish the people who don't change with them by making it a damn law that they do. You can pretend it's for some other reason, but the reality is that it's not.
Global warming is a proven fact and it has nothing to do with the size or performance of your, ahem, "vehicle" nor with the mode of transportation you choose to compensate for your many personal deficiencies
Is it now? Oh well. it doesn't matter because you are sill missing a point in your statement. What is not a proven fact is how badly it will impact humans or how costly it will be to cope with it or wether we should deal with it now or when it happens. But please, by all means, if you have "Proof" otherwise, then present it. I seriously doubt if you did, it would be much more then speculation.
And I don't care that you don't care about the Earth or your own grandchildren if you have any. You're part of a community whether you like it or not and you will curtail your consumption and pollution.M
The GP cared. And if I'm part of a community, then I have a say in how it's run. I also am free to do as I damn well please. If you do not like it, move to another community. It's really that simple. If you are free, then you are free to move. If we aren't free, you can force your unwanted regulation and crap onto me. But lets not pretend we are still free at that point. It then becomes a You are free to do anything you want as long as it's what I want. Well, that can be turned around to.
So take you smug idiocy and travel somewhere where someone actually cares.
The first problem is, no one knows for sure of the quakes are caused by this process. Secondly, theoretically, smaller quakes over decades is probably more preferable then one large quake lasting 2 days. Third, these externalizations are already paid for in the form of lower costs to the consumer so it really doesn't matter unless it's killing people.
You see, you can regulate natural gas to the point it costs 10 times more then it does now and people will still have to buy it. You can put the entire industry out of business and people will suffer. More likely then not, they will go back to burning trees for heat and light which is probably worse then burning natural gas. Or you can make it relatively safe and pass some things on to the population at large who pay for it by enjoying cheaper utilities.
You are under the incorrect assumption that people are motivated by their feelings.
The earth quake in Arkansas, not my problem. The contaminated water in Pennsylvania, not my problem, the millions of barrels of oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, again, not my problem. So why would I feel anything over them. I do have some concern that if could happen closer to me and become my problem. And if it does, I will look at how all these other places deal with it and decide which is the cheapest and most effective route to fix the problem.
If it's naturally cheaper to buy a different car, I'll go there. If it's cheaper just to clean it up later, I'll be happier with that. If the water can be filtered verses something else, and boom another option.
But what you don't understand if that I will live my life free and remain free enough to do as I want. I'm not going to be charged more to be free or told I can't be free because you have some vision of how everything would be better if we were forced to do things your way. I'm not going to be told I have to move to a city or take a job I don't like because you think cars are evil. I'm not going to put low flow shower heads in my bathrooms (the shower should be able to flow at the same rate as filling the tub up would) or water saver toilets in that take 5 flushed to empty the bowl instead of the one before. I'm not going out and spending tons of extra money on a new car because the EPA mandate some fuel efficiency or something when my old car works perfectly fine. In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous because I can and will do things you want to do but somehow guilted yourself into thinking it's bad or something..
Slashdot Mirror
There's really two parts to answer this.
First, it's not really all that difficult when you understand the pork barrel spending. 70% or more of the subsidies is designed to keep the oil companies in an area in which a congress person would benefit from. Some of it happens to do with keeping jobs, others is keeping revenue from well leases and so on. I completely understand what you are saying though, but if you approach it already knowing that the oil companies don't need it, you can start to see who does.
The second part, It is not only a karmic results, it's what some of the subsidies are designed to do. The oil industry already has the distribution network there, the processing capabilities and expertise, it's just a matter of jobs being kept to get them to transition close to how it is now, verses off shoring everything. There is a large push (concealed within some of the subsidies) to get oil companies into alternative energy sources sooner then later. Perhaps much sooner then karma alone could accomplish.
Yes, I agree. The problem is, currently, we don't have a comparable replacement. What this and other stories seem to glance past, (maybe it's just the commentators), is that when we inflate energy costs and alternatives not otherwise become viable, it crashes our economy. Sure, there was a lost more to it, but we can't discount the impact that high prices for energy played into it. It sucked the free money away from everyone.
I agree too. Except I think we need more of an investment into the raw sciences to make it happen then into an industry. Either way, something happening overnight will not come out well. It will take 20 or more years to replace the majority of oil dependent embedded infrastructure as soon as something is figured out.Cars, machinery, HVAC systems, all need to see the end of a useful life instead of expecting people to just throw them out for the next big thing.
They do? Your right, because they can explore other areas of business and develop techniques to deal with it in the future without a large loss. However, that doesn't mean they would continue to do so if they were removed.
I didn't say there wasn't a benefit for them. I said the benefit wouldn't effect their profit or prices if it was removed. Instead, they would just go back to what's normally profitable until such time prices are high enough for them to get into those areas on their own.
That's somewhat of a misnomer. The subsidies are mostly tricks to get the oil industry to invest in areas that are not profitable for them and they wouldn't otherwise be at.
In more plain terms, if the subsidies didn't exist, oil companies would not miss them, they simply would not be doing some of the things they are now at the request of the government. Eliminating those subsidies would have no real noticeable effect on price or profit.
No.. our industry has been so regulated and people demand so much money for simple tasks, that it's cheaper to get things from other cultures.
It's not so much a matter of continuous improvement, it's a matter of affordability. I can generally buy 3 china made products that last 40% of the time one American made product might last for less costs then one home grown equivalent.
No.. not really.
The trucking system pays a hefty fuel tax for the use of those interstate roads. A single driver truck will average about 3000 miles a week over 50 weeks. That truck will pay close to $14,000 a year in IFTA (fuel taxes). This is not counting registration fees, permits, state surety bonds, or anything else associated with it. When you consider team drivers that will average about 5500-6000 miles per week, that number jumps quite a bit (over 20k).
and yes, I used conservative mileage estimates there. when I drove, I averaged close to 3500 a week for most of the year (winter caused it to go down to 3000).
The trucking industry more then pays for it's use of the roads. The problem is that the money they pay, gets spent elsewhere. This is no different then regular gas taxes either. for instance, a few years ago, The town I live closest to, ended up spending most of the gas tax on a rural bike path that doesn't even come close to any business centers in the town. They then complained they they didn't have enough money to fix the roads. the state, funneled a lot of the road use tax money to other programs too. Even the feds take the money and put it in other areas.
You would be more accurate in saying the government is subsidized by the trucking industry.
Well, who is more acclimated to state if someone is a pedophile, the kids who are in contact with someone on a daily basis or adults making accusations?
Here is the difference, when kids make the claim, society assumes they have some first hand knowledge as in they are the victim since the crime is about underage kids. when an adult makes the claim, there isn't really any first hand assumption outside of people already vested in their integrity believing their word. But because the child is the subject of the victimization, often an investigation is conducted on their behalf at the accusation.
It's something that is completely different when a kid makes the claim verses when an adult makes the claim.
Shh.. I don't want them to figure out why I have yet one more reason not to use gnome. If they don't get it through self discovery, they won't learn anything.
Even if people do need more screen real estate for other apps, it doesn't negate the need to re-size the windows they are shown in. In fact, it sort of supports that idea as you will now need multiple windows sizes at their discretion.
I take from your tone you were trying to be sarcastic in pointing to how the parent was wrong. However, I believe you proved his point in that one size windows doesn't fit all. Just in case you're confused, he didn't say all anyone needed was 80 characters, he said there's a reason why we need to re-size the windows regularly.
Well, that's sort of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe doctrine.
I'm not going to pretend that the US is innocent, but the interactions with Tripoli happened in the first 20 years of our existence. Jefferson was the third president if I remember correctly.
But back to the Monroe doctrine, This was a result of Europe interfering with south and central America. It's also on of the reasons why half speak Spanish and the other half, French (or dialects of that). Anyways, those have been somewhat abused since it's been a long standing practice that what's in our interest is their interest by default (as we basically told Europe, if you mess with them, you are messing with us).
Yes, I can see how they would think some things about the US. We have intentionally interfered in their politics when it was to out benefit. If we stayed out, Cuba would likely either be part of Mexico or part of spain right now (as we originally helped free them from Spain's rule). But all that seems separate and secondary to Carter's screw-ups with the search for oil and the IMF, or Regan's war on drugs, or Clinton's move to put the US back on the world oil market, not to mention various moves within the countries themselves that contributed to that.
Out of curiosity, do you know that the first off continent marine battle was against Muslims? Or that the reason the US created a standing navy was because of them to? This was a priority done by Thomas Jefferson once he became president because when as a diplomat stationed in France, he asked the ambassador to Tripoli what gave them the rights to pirate our Atlantic shores and take our people captive, and the reply was Allah gave them the right.
This also marked our first allied interaction with Kuwait. While Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire, they were a major port port of commerce to the Americas and allowed US naval and marines safe harbor for preparations against out attacks on Tripoli.
You can say that it's all Grey and lost in the details. But that doesn't make it true. There is a pattern of behavior that has transgress beyond the crusades.
And no, I'm not going to say it's the religion that causes it. It's most likely man doing things while using the religion as a shield.
Actually, they were tracking him in an investigation to someone he knew and he fit the profile because of his trips home. It threw red flags, he got investigated and cleared.
This all would have been done without his knowledge if the repair shop wouldn't have notices the tracker.
Anyways, I doubt there was anything illegal about this as at the time it happened, it was legal to do that.
Here is some more details on it.
It depends on how much they know and where it is at.
If they are hands off, I don't enter, it's up to the members posting and they remove anything brought to their attention- reporting obvious law violations to the authorities, then there is a good chance they aren't liable at all. But if they know and do nothing, or encourage it, they can be very liable.
Chances are, the forum would be considered possession of criminal tools in the act of whatever related crime and some sort of conspiracy charge to commit the crime. Already in regular crimes, if I hand you a crow bar knowing that you are going to use it to break into a store or smash someone with it, those principles apply. So it would depend a lot on the jurisdiction, the laws within, and how intelligent the prosecutor is. You might have all those elements and as prosecutor that is completely dumbfounded because the word cyber doesn't appear in any of the existing laws.
Congress and the justice department aren't part of the DOD. The DOD was not his only avenue of redress.
Anyways, your link intrigued me so I followed it to the source. Here are some things that the link failed to point out.
So of the 600 claims of reprisal, less then 1 in 5 were true. This means for every 1 true claim, 4 were false. But it breaks it down further with,
I think this speaks for itself, but in case it's not exactly clear, the one in five is from the number 54.
Oh yea, one more thing. The 20 and 15 percent differences. That's because the link you reference groups all claims of reprisal together. They are actually recorded separately when senior officials were investigated. 257 cases were with senior officials, 382 cases were with all other aspects of the DOD including defense contractors. Of the investigations into senior officials that were actually warranted, the "topics such as alleged violation of the Privacy Act, improper official travel, reprisal, sexual harassment and improper acceptance of a gift from a subordinate", were covered so it includes a lot more then just reprisals for whistle blowing.
The actual report cited in the link doesn't exactly paint the picture the link you provided does. It ignored plenty of details and attempted to lump complaints not even associated with reprisals on whistle blowers as if they were. Presumably, this was in order to bolster their case- whatever that may be. It may surprise you to know that the TPM site is basically a democrat schill group with stated goals that a united democrat front will deny republicans office. When encountering sites like that, You should always check the source and weed out the bullshit before taking it as fact. And that goes just as well for republican, or tea party or whatever sites making claims.
The oath soldiers take says nothing about the ideals of the US constitution. Stop reading into things and turning it into something it isn't.
Th oath the soldiers take goes as follows.
There is another one, almost identical with the addition of governor for the national guard members.
Now regardless of what you think about what manning did or what was supposedly exposed, there were legitimate avenues of redress he could have taken. These avenues ranged from speaking to his commanding officer, speaking to a jag officer, speaking to his congressman or senator, or even the department of justice. He did none of this. Instead, he grabbed a bunch of documents, some video and other things that he most likely didn't even read and release them to the detriment of the country and the post he was serving under.
The way he went about things is somewhat like shooting a person to stop their broken foot from bothering them. He may have achieve what you think the goal was, but he went about it all the wrong way.
When you are invaded, you are at war. An ex political faction of Afghanistan was driven out of power by a war we commence. That same faction, the one that gave safe harbor to Al Qeada, is trying to retake the territory.
In short, we are at war technically as much as any other way we have been in.
Probably because a: you don't understand why we went to war, and b: fighting terrorism with law enforcement turned into 4 hijacked planes and about 3000 innocent people dead who did little more then showing up to work.
You are an ignorant fool. First, Rush was on vacation in Hawaii. He didn't fly there from Florida or new york because he was having chest pains. He was already there. It's completely stupid to suggest that someone jumps on a plane and cherry picks some state thousands of miles away because of an emergency condition.
National health care has nothing to do with Hawaii. The health care in Hawaii, outside of minimum standards prescribed by the FDA, is completely Hawaii's jurisdiction. That's where the public health care belongs too. In the state, not the federal government.
Or, you just don't know what you are talking about and letting everyone on the world know it too. And if all your politics are this clueless, I'm not sure anyone should listen to you about it ever again.
Not to mention that he and his insurance paid the bill, not the citizens of Hawaii.
Your right, south and central America are far more likely spots for Canadian medical tourists. Just like India and Taiwan are popular with the UK's.
And no, it's not a single instance extrapolated, it's a single instance that is easy to remember because it's a politicians who bailed on the system.
You mean like the wealth being made from wait insurance? You know, the insurance policy that quite a few Canadians are purchasing that guarantees they will be taken out of the country for treatment if necessary?
I could see your point if health insurance wasn't still being purchased and sold in Canada to Canadians.
Wrong. the medical bills would simply be levied against their estate and their kids wouldn't get any inheritance. What wasn't paid would be written off in taxes and keep their paid services per charitable services at a rate in which they continue to receive the non-profit tax deductions.
There are enough programs out there that it's likely it would have been paid for in the first place. I'm not sure why you insist on perpetuating the myth that people are left to die because they can't afford something. It's illegal for any hospital to refuse emergency medical treatment to anyone on the bases of their ability to pay.
The parent may have implied a couple incorrect notions, you certainly did. Let's take a chance and see what happens if our notions are actually correct before spouting them. I'm betting that improvement in both places could be possible.
You might be using some selective remembrance there.
The Canadian health-care system is trash talked to. In fact, one of the funniest thrashings of the Canadian health care system is the fact that a superior court ruled that Quebec's ban on wait time insurance was immoral because the wait times for treatments were causing people to die or be permanently disfigured by their conditions.
France and other larger countries are typically ignored because they aren't thrown up as models of how it can work. This is mostly because the UK and Canada are more similar to the US. When people claim it can work, they know the population in the US won't stand for the differences between the US and France in the government of the economy and other areas. It's implicit that their systems works because of things that are radically different which we won't accept.
Well, that's true until you create a situation where only the rich can afford something and the rich are now poor. Eventually, it will cost so much for anything needing those resources that no one will have it.
You might say, well they will have enough sense to not let it get that bad. But as the industries improve and get better, so does the mark in which we gauge them at. It's happened twice in the last 40 years that I can remember. It simply won't stop until it's not being used.
I'm not sure why it went to Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Anyways.. I'm not assuming a zero sum gain, I'm acknowledging the reality that free people want things outside their reach and often settle for what's inside it. People that have things don't want to give them up typically without getting something in return. The reality is, when people can't afford something, they either steal it, asked for help getting it, or make do with what they got. A lot of times it ends up going to making do. And that means reverting back to whatever was the last best thing or inventing something new.
The corruption issue and major pollution and all can be addressed. But I do not think it will allow people to live like kings. Well, not without forcing others to do things they don't want to do.
It's actually pretty easy. All I have to do is watch you go on a frothing at the mouth rant about something that I already acknowledged and said was subject to interpretation, then look for anything else important that was added to the discussion. Turns out there isn't so I'm just as ignorant as I was before you wasted electrons showing the world how one sided you are.
Yea, and no one cared one bit or knew about it until it was known that a journalist was killed. Even the video, yes the edited versions that make it look like they knew he was unarmed too, refer to the one journalist in the titles and mentioning of the situation. It's not like those other people disappeared, but it's perfectly logical to refer to it as the journalist getting killed situation.
Your right. I don't care in the sense that it was in the middle of a war, they were in a conflict zone, and a mistake happened. It's not some big evil thing like it's been made out as at all. Is it a tragic mistake that I wish wasn't repeated, Yes. But that doesn't make it "wrong doings" warranting the release of shit tons of information and documents completely not related to it.
But it's obvious you are just letting your ignorance and emotions, probably combines with some inaccurate preconceived notions, troll your logic so I probably shouldn't have replied at all. You spent the better half of a paragraph attempting to make me recognize more about a situation I already knew about. Then you pretend to know what I think in turn when you can't even grasp referencing to something in shorthand. But what tops it all off is your notion that it's about the oil flowing. Grow up and grab a new argument. Perhaps this time, one that grounded in reality.
Please tell me, and I'm serious about this, what wrong doings has leaking all that information uncovered? Last I heard, it was the accidental but unsympathetic killing of a journalist and how US diplomats talk crude behind people's back.
The journalist is subject to interpretation and plenty of people have edited the video to their interpretation, but as far as I know, the rest of the leaks had little to do with any wrong doings.
I could see your point otherwise. Hell, I would probably be championing it with you. But I don't see any massive wrong doings that were uncovered.
Yea.. and you continue to get mad at what I do. Look, you even resorted to name calling. I was actually trying to make a point. I guess It was well over your head.
The bottom line is that people who claim to be doing something that limit's their freedom, costs more, or makes them feel good about what they are doing because it "helps the environment" are people who did it the way regular people have done it and changed. And the majority of those people who changed, try to punish the people who don't change with them by making it a damn law that they do. You can pretend it's for some other reason, but the reality is that it's not.
Is it now? Oh well. it doesn't matter because you are sill missing a point in your statement. What is not a proven fact is how badly it will impact humans or how costly it will be to cope with it or wether we should deal with it now or when it happens. But please, by all means, if you have "Proof" otherwise, then present it. I seriously doubt if you did, it would be much more then speculation.
The GP cared. And if I'm part of a community, then I have a say in how it's run. I also am free to do as I damn well please. If you do not like it, move to another community. It's really that simple. If you are free, then you are free to move. If we aren't free, you can force your unwanted regulation and crap onto me. But lets not pretend we are still free at that point. It then becomes a You are free to do anything you want as long as it's what I want. Well, that can be turned around to.
So take you smug idiocy and travel somewhere where someone actually cares.
lol.. More like he's saying So?
The first problem is, no one knows for sure of the quakes are caused by this process. Secondly, theoretically, smaller quakes over decades is probably more preferable then one large quake lasting 2 days. Third, these externalizations are already paid for in the form of lower costs to the consumer so it really doesn't matter unless it's killing people.
You see, you can regulate natural gas to the point it costs 10 times more then it does now and people will still have to buy it. You can put the entire industry out of business and people will suffer. More likely then not, they will go back to burning trees for heat and light which is probably worse then burning natural gas. Or you can make it relatively safe and pass some things on to the population at large who pay for it by enjoying cheaper utilities.
You are under the incorrect assumption that people are motivated by their feelings.
The earth quake in Arkansas, not my problem. The contaminated water in Pennsylvania, not my problem, the millions of barrels of oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, again, not my problem. So why would I feel anything over them. I do have some concern that if could happen closer to me and become my problem. And if it does, I will look at how all these other places deal with it and decide which is the cheapest and most effective route to fix the problem.
If it's naturally cheaper to buy a different car, I'll go there. If it's cheaper just to clean it up later, I'll be happier with that. If the water can be filtered verses something else, and boom another option.
But what you don't understand if that I will live my life free and remain free enough to do as I want. I'm not going to be charged more to be free or told I can't be free because you have some vision of how everything would be better if we were forced to do things your way. I'm not going to be told I have to move to a city or take a job I don't like because you think cars are evil. I'm not going to put low flow shower heads in my bathrooms (the shower should be able to flow at the same rate as filling the tub up would) or water saver toilets in that take 5 flushed to empty the bowl instead of the one before. I'm not going out and spending tons of extra money on a new car because the EPA mandate some fuel efficiency or something when my old car works perfectly fine. In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous because I can and will do things you want to do but somehow guilted yourself into thinking it's bad or something..