Here is the problem though. IF the rich share in that, and they have to pay more because of that, then shouldn't they get more of a say in that? I mean hell, even if taxes were at a flat 10% for everyone, the guy making $100 a year would still be paying less then the guy making $1 million a year.
Like the GP said, if it's the stores policy to give $50 to each customer, he might say "that's a bad way to run a business." Being for or taking part in existing entitlement programs and trying to stop adding more isn't dis-associative at all.
International flights would probably operate under different rules if for no other reason than the lack of very many countries that permit their citizens to carry firearms. The 9/11 flights were domestic, so let's confine our discussion to that arena.
Fair enough. Let's say I'm a Yemenite raised in the US. I have two brothers in the same situation and we all have stolen the identity of our neighbors and forged the Gun Permits as well as other Identification documents. We are now back at the same situation.
Sure, and where does the budget for that come from? There are over 25,000 domestic flights in the United States each day. Accounting for three shifts and building in some overhead for sick days/vacation/training/etc you'd probably need to hire ~150,000-200,000 LEOs to put two air marshals on each flight. If they are classified GS-10 (that's where the FBI starts their special agents [fbijobs.gov]) they'll be making ~65K a year. Toss in their benefits, training, etc and the cost per employee is close to 100k.
Well, some of those flights are the same flights just doing stops here and there. But your right, it would get expensive. This is probably why the air marshals are not in uniform and it's not announced to the public which flights they will or won't be on. This random appearance of anyone being LEO or equivalent is the same deterrent noted with concealed carry so I'm not sure where it's much different. I mean unless you are going to somehow guarantee that a concealed carry passenger will be on every flight. But then we are running into the same logistics and fiscal problems you already brought about- except we don't know the CC passenger isn't a terrorist in disguise.
That's FUD. A.45" hole is going to cause depressurization. It's not going to "explode" the cabin walls.
Read what I said again. I said it might not automagically cause it. But you cannot guarantee that it won't cause it. In fact, there is a special ammo required to be used by air marshals and pilots because the risk is there.
That's what the oxygen masks are for. And it has nothing to do with "being a hero". It has everything to do with saving your life. Self-defense is an inalienable human right. It does not cease to exist at cruising altitude.
And now we are back to the swinging fists and nose rights again. You inalienable right to self defense stops when it endangers my life. You cannot shoot me because someone else is trying to kill you. You cannot kill my family or anyone else because someone else is threatening your life or family. That is in essence what you will be doing if you kill or otherwise incapacitate the only people capable of safely flying the plane or recklessly do so before someone capable is able to take control of it. That's what you would essentially be doing if your shot caused the windows to burst out sucking the air out and causing those people to go unconscious before they can take control of the plane.
And you cannot guarantee that your actions won't be mistaken by another CC passenger as a terrorist act and them doing the same. And yes, shooting a gun on a plane is a little more serious then you are making it out to be.
This is what makes no sense to me. You don't like the way the democrats were doing these things, so you vote for the republicans who are worse on pretty much all counts. They've used reconciliation more, they don't do anything to keep jobs here, in fact they've done a lot to help with all the offshoring, they prefer borrow and spend to tax and spend, which is about as fiscally irresponsible as you can get, and at least we have perceivable results for the deficit spending of the last couple years. Republicans don't have a recession as a reason for their deficit spending over the last several years.
You are assuming that the point is not to have it done rather then to get the ones doing it out of office. There is a time and place for the reconciliation process. Using it to advance an unpopular agenda isn't that. Using it for legislation that doesn't cost capitol expenditures- that is time sensitive and so on is why and how it should be used.
And if you get past the elect me rhetoric, you will find that the dems and republicans are pretty much identical on hey've done a lot to help with all the offshoring. As for the recession, well the democrats aren't entirely innocent on the deficit spending in the same time frame either. The dems held the senate in 2001, republicans had a 1 seat majority until 2005 which then became a 5 seat majority until 2007 where the dems took control again. The leads in the house weren't all that impressive either. In all of this, the dems and republicans had to work together on spending and you will find that a good number of both supported the overspending.
Of course jobs are always one of the last areas of improvement when coming out of a recession. Not sure what magic people think the Republicans are going to pull out of their asses to fix that. Apparently the republicans know this as well, since the back-peddling started on election night as they attempted to lower expectations after all the crap they were spewing during the campaign. They will do exactly what they were berating the democrats for doing, which is to insist that they have a mandate and that the other side should respect that and allow them to pass the legislation they want. Of course they'll conveniently forget that they never did any such thing when the shoe was on the other foot, which is why the health care bill was watered-down and the stimulus wasn't as big as the economists had recommended.
I don't think it's as much the magic jobs will appear, as it is that the far left dems were spouting ideas that would kill jobs like raising taxes on small businesses and taxing energy use more then it already is. Obama's recent comments about how losing your job to India means more jobs in the US is a brazened example of this. The people don't want to have to retrain after being employed and skilled in something for 26 years just to start over on retirement benefits and seniority at something they are entirely unfamiliar with. Then to have a callous attitude towards them on top of that is like pouring lemon juice on a paper cute that feels a lot like a knife wound in the back. At least when clinton negotiated and implements free trade agreements, he pretended to care about the misplaced workers that resulted from them. It's a lot of the reason the entire compassionate conservatism movement was started- because Clinton could do some of the most outrageous crap then get away with it because he cared.
The health care bill should have been trashed from the start, they should have focuses on the actual problems if they were going to get involved at all, and this idea of controlling costs by ensuring a customer base by assigning penalties for not purchasing health insurance is asinine at best. It could have been approached in a much more efficient way with a lot better results.
I can almost understand voting against the democrats because they're a disorganized bunch of fuck-ups, but when the al
Passengers on all the planes (not just Flight 93) were in communications with the ground, so it stands to reason that they all knew what was happening. Perhaps the people on the first plane were clueless but certainly the people on the other three knew damn well what was going to happen.
Well, not really. You are assuming something that you only know out of hindsight. If you were on a plane that deviated from it's normal flight path, after you realized that, you might be in a position to know the plan was to crash the plane. The problem here is knowing with enough time to do something. There was only 17 minutes between the fist crash and the second. And the recorded communications with both ended mid stream- moments before the crash or because of the crash. Known communications in both of those situations stated that the pilots were killed. So if you had a gun, knew the pilots were dead, how long would it take to figure out if anyone still alive could fly the plane, then kill the terrorists without getting that person killed in the process, then take control of the plane?
Perhaps flight 77 and 93 may have been a bit different, with flight 93, they told them they were all going to die and it appears that the passengers chose to do something about it before others were taken with them. But they heard the flight cabin being taken over back at the tower and heard the terrorist claim there was a bomb on board that they would detonate instructing them that they was going back to the airport to land and give demands. Flight 77 on the other hand was 30 some minutes after the first two flights and there is no record of any communications with the ground at all.
So why not put some teeth back in the 2nd amendment and allow law-abiding American citizens to carry guns? It works on the ground, why not in the air?
Because unlike on the ground, a stray bullet can kill the only people capable of flying/landing the plane. It's not like you can get up and walk home or to your car right after the gun fight. You are at the mercy of the law of gravity. And this is not even touching the problems with a pressurized cabin environment where a puncture in the side could possible cause a blowout sucking other passengers, air pressure and oxygen with it. It's not like if you miss, the bullet will hit a brick wall or a car and stop or something. It's not like the bullet would likely only kill one innocent bystander if it went through the person or missed them entirely. It could kill every single person on board.
Using a gun in a passenger airplane when shooter isn't trained for the unique circumstances or using special ammunition is a lot like using a Grenade as a tactical weapon in rowboat. Except in this case, knowing how to swim is absolutely useless.
Not really. All they would have to do is come from a country that would allow them to carry weapons onto the plane too. Once in US soil, they simply kill the passengers, overwhelm the cockpit and do the same.
I'm all for an armed and prepared population capable of defending itself. But this is just one of those situations where you only want certain people carrying weapons and the hint of someone else having a weapon would mean an indication or wrong intent. One or two air marshals hidden within the passengers and perhaps one of the pilots would likely be good enough. But if we remember 9/11, one or two of the pilots were in on the plan from the start so the pilot could just use the gun to further the terrorist plot. And something that you might not be noticing or recognizing is that the plane is in a pressurized environment once at cruising altitude. While this might not automagically cause the cabin walls to explode sucking passengers out if you shoot through them (it could), it very well can deplete the oxygen levels and air pressure rapidly creating a life threatening situation for the passengers should you miss your target while trying to be a hero.
Lol.. You and your comic book facts. Oh well, it your going to continue to spout off unsupported nonsense, I guess we are done. There are plenty of grass or range feed cattle in the US and we don't wait until they die of old age first. This means they are not only tender, but mature and flavorful as well. Keep on thinking you know it all though, it just means more goodness for us.
If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened.
This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan. Before 9/11, if a plane was hijacked, it went to some airport, most likely foreign, and demands were made with the threat of killing the civilians on board being the bargaining strength. Even if you had a gun or a knife on board, you would have been directed by flight crew to not use it as the hijacking was seen more of an inconvenience then a real life threatening situation.
This actually change post 9/11 where they now treat all hijackings as a death sentence.
Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?
When I don't have the option of protecting myself and my family by either using a weapon in self defense or removing myself and family from the danger, then yes, violating the 4th amendment in order to ensure we are on an even footing is recommended.
And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified. Also, it should be noted that I only endorse this specifically where other options like escape is impossible. So it's not like I'm advocating search lines to cross the street or anything because some city instituted a gun ban. But when boarding a sealed tube that is going to be 35000 feet from anything I can walk on, I want to know that a reasonable effort was made to weed out the nutcases that would want to kill me for something I have absolutely no connection with outside of being born in a geographical location.
That part where I have to sit inside a sealed tube with you and whoever else comes on board with no easy way to escape the dangers you or whoever else bring about.. Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along. Your right to be loud and obnoxious, again to which I cannot reasonably escape from is terminated too. This is in line just as your right to stick your nose into my business ends about where my fists are swinging and my right to swing my fists ends at the point they make contact with you.
America most certainly was as such. And you seem to be very confused to those four people while ignoring the fact that the majority of companies in America today were started after WWII and aren't publicly traded. What you generally hear about is publicly traded companies because they has a market listing as well as legislatively mandate reporting and compliance requirements. This throws your entire argument into the trash bin.
Lets explore this a little more. For instance, there are about 2790 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. These are medium to large companies. But in the US, there are over 25.4 million companies, the overwhelming majority of which are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses. 5.8 million of those companies are regular companies with a payroll (employees other then the owners) and so on. There are about 3,534 firms in the US that employ 2,500 or more people. This is 700 or more companies then everything listed on the NYSE.
Now what you say might be true if you ignored all of the private companies. But that wouldn't be much of a comparison with reality now would it? It also wouldn't be in line with what I said either.
To be fair, the op was being facetious. There isn't arguing or fighting going on during news broadcasts in America either. That crap happens during opinion oriented shows on News Channels in the US.
Well, it could be that the op doesn't no the difference between a program on a news channel and a news broadcast. I doubt he's that relaxed in the intelligence department though.
How do you figure? You wouldn't have that culture if they didn't create it in the first place. Could you imagine writing a book, publishing it and no one buying it for 7 years, then every tom dick and harry decides to put it on the interweb and they now get it free while you are still flipping burgers and washing dishes for a living?
I would be a bit cautious on claiming EU and UK meat being higher quality. After all, it's those markets in which MAD COW disease first got it's big exposure. Since then, they have tightened some of the rules and regulations, but you are still getting your news from comic books or something. Meat exports to Europe, particularly beef are on the rise.
American Beef is generally superior to European Beff simply because we raise beef cattle specifically for beef and harvest them at a younger more tender age. If you think Shoe leather or cooking the meet so long that you need a crap ton of other ingredients to make it taste good is good meat, then that's just your opinion. But the meat in the US is generally so good, that we don't need a slew of sauces or vegetables to cover the flavor or break down the texture in order to be somewhat presentable. In most cases in the US, a steak cooked medium rare and a slab of butter melting over top of it is more then enough for a great steak.
Oh yea, the hormones and antibiotics aren't as prevalent as you seem to want to think in the US markets. This is nothing but your comic book world view I guess.
Agenda-oriented democrats? What does that even mean? Are you saying they don't like the agenda they voted for, or that they don't like agendas in general, or what? I'm an independent, and given the lousy selection of candidates for most offices, I tend to vote against candidates more than for them. I'm still rather baffled by this last election. I can only guess that the all the ads must have worked, because aside from that nothing else makes any sense.
Agenda oriented.. The agenda being that instead of meeting criticisms and conflicting lines of thought with rationed logic to persuade the opponents or demonstrate the superior line of thinking, they attempt to squelch the opponents speech keeping their ideas at the forefront and therefor making people think it's the norm.
In other words, it's not trolls making statements as much as people attempting to bury those statements from being seen. The fix, browse at a lower level by default or add points to negetive modded categories.
As for this last election, it makes perfect sense. The people who supported the legislative agenda weren't happy because it didn't go far enough. They stayed home and pouted. The people who apposed it, got pissed and motivated- they showed up. Except for a small few in tight or important races, the enthusiasm simply wasn't there.
You also have the fed up crowed. The people who are simply fed up with the government pulling tricks to get unpopular agendas moving (health care and reconciliation for instance), people who are fed up with the government saying their jobs aren't important, you have to retrain to work in the green job fields, and the people who see this massive attempt to tax and spend with no measurable or perceivable results. They were motivated more or less to just get the incumbent out.
Oh, I get it now, your not really knocking American Cuisine, you are living out irrational fears and prejudices to the fullest extent. Well, good for you then.
Or they can create an environment to which the normal person can actually accelerate in life independent of them or other private parties. You know, how America once was....
Why don't you come on over for a BBQ. I can set you up with some shit that will make you never want to go back home. If you think all Americans eat is hot dogs and burgers, that all cheese in America comes from a tube, and there is only one type of bologna in the US, you need to get your international cuisine news from places other then your comic books and Hawaii Five O reruns.
And yes, I'm been to Europe, I have been to England and you guys have nothing on us- at least nothing that I could find in the short 2 weeks I was there.
How do you know that people who apposed the tax were only thinking about their own pocket over their entire society?
Many people appose things for various reasons, I appose certain welfare programs because they imply an incentive for not working. That doesn't mean I'm out to protect my own pocket, it means I'm not willing to allow the government to trap people into being dependent on them.
Osama isn't behind the US problems. Failure to enforce existing laws, rules, and regulations, and attempting to promote social agendas over fiscal responsibility seems to be.
The Bush Tax cuts wouldn't have had an effect with him as this will all be taxed at the capitol gains rate not his personal income rate. They are both technically income, one however is limited in order to spur activity.
Actually, it's more of the dangers of the lifestyle in general. More people are killed from more reckless behavior in the US then in the UK. We do more stupid shit on a regular basis like give some types of guns to anyone over 18 based on nothing more then their desire to have them. We allow juveniles to handle loaded firearms and other weapons (Bow and Arrows) unsupervised for extended lengths of time (while hunting) and so on. We have one of the largest recreational boating populations in the western world, some of the largest lands allotted to motorcycle, quad-atv, and other recreational uses.
But probably the number one risk that would alter the life expectancy quite a bit would be cars. In the US, there is/was about 2.28 cars per household (in 2008) while only about 1.1 cars per household in the UK (at about the time- from 2008 to 2009). This means that more people are driving in the US then in the UK. Gas is also cheaper which generally means that more people are driving for recreational uses verses more restrictive usage like necessities and so on. But something that probably would make this skewed even more would be that in the UK, you typically have to be 17 to get a drivers license and even then, you are restricted to what types of cars you can drive until your 18 or 21. In the US, it differs from state to state, but in most cases, you can start driving at 16 years of age, there is no limits on the types of cars (or non-commercial trucks) and in some areas, with certain hardships you can get a drivers license at age 14 (Ohio is one).
A reflection of this is strongly shown in the UK traffic death statistics in which they listed that in 2006, there were 5.4 road accident deaths per 100,000 population in the UK compared to 14.3 per 100,000 populations in the US. I don't car where you are, if you have almost three times as many people dieing from more or less random occurrences, the life expectancy will be lower and it won't be much on the grounds of health care provided Health care provided is equal in traffic fatalities because it's all either not in the equation (dead on the scene) or life threatening injuries in which not only does car insurance cover, it's illegal in the US for a hospital open to the public to refuse or limit emergency medical treatment based around the ability to pay.
Relax a little. Some people simply cannot build themselves up without tearing someone else down. It's a race to the lowest common denominator with them. It's how they evolved or failed to evolve when the world changed around them.
Why would you think he was talking about adaptation as evolution and not speciation as in what religion would be in conflict with as the op suggested by calling on the young earthers?
I mean seriously, you can legitimately divide evolution and evolutionary theory into two distinct groups. One being adaptation and the other being speciation. One might lead to the other but has never been observed unless someone plays with the definition of species in order to point it out. Now most every religion that I know of would not argue with adaptation but some would argue with speciation. So adaptation provides a mechanism to speciation but does not make speciation true, so when he said adaptation, he was referring specifically to a mechanism and not the entire theory.
It wasn't all the sudden. You simply started paying attention to more then your own preconceived notions and realized that not everyone agreed with you. It's nothing new, it's not a conspiracy, it's just life outside your bubble.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the problem though. IF the rich share in that, and they have to pay more because of that, then shouldn't they get more of a say in that? I mean hell, even if taxes were at a flat 10% for everyone, the guy making $100 a year would still be paying less then the guy making $1 million a year.
Like the GP said, if it's the stores policy to give $50 to each customer, he might say "that's a bad way to run a business." Being for or taking part in existing entitlement programs and trying to stop adding more isn't dis-associative at all.
Fair enough. Let's say I'm a Yemenite raised in the US. I have two brothers in the same situation and we all have stolen the identity of our neighbors and forged the Gun Permits as well as other Identification documents. We are now back at the same situation.
Well, some of those flights are the same flights just doing stops here and there. But your right, it would get expensive. This is probably why the air marshals are not in uniform and it's not announced to the public which flights they will or won't be on. This random appearance of anyone being LEO or equivalent is the same deterrent noted with concealed carry so I'm not sure where it's much different. I mean unless you are going to somehow guarantee that a concealed carry passenger will be on every flight. But then we are running into the same logistics and fiscal problems you already brought about- except we don't know the CC passenger isn't a terrorist in disguise.
Read what I said again. I said it might not automagically cause it. But you cannot guarantee that it won't cause it. In fact, there is a special ammo required to be used by air marshals and pilots because the risk is there.
And now we are back to the swinging fists and nose rights again. You inalienable right to self defense stops when it endangers my life. You cannot shoot me because someone else is trying to kill you. You cannot kill my family or anyone else because someone else is threatening your life or family. That is in essence what you will be doing if you kill or otherwise incapacitate the only people capable of safely flying the plane or recklessly do so before someone capable is able to take control of it. That's what you would essentially be doing if your shot caused the windows to burst out sucking the air out and causing those people to go unconscious before they can take control of the plane.
And you cannot guarantee that your actions won't be mistaken by another CC passenger as a terrorist act and them doing the same. And yes, shooting a gun on a plane is a little more serious then you are making it out to be.
You are assuming that the point is not to have it done rather then to get the ones doing it out of office. There is a time and place for the reconciliation process. Using it to advance an unpopular agenda isn't that. Using it for legislation that doesn't cost capitol expenditures- that is time sensitive and so on is why and how it should be used.
And if you get past the elect me rhetoric, you will find that the dems and republicans are pretty much identical on hey've done a lot to help with all the offshoring. As for the recession, well the democrats aren't entirely innocent on the deficit spending in the same time frame either. The dems held the senate in 2001, republicans had a 1 seat majority until 2005 which then became a 5 seat majority until 2007 where the dems took control again. The leads in the house weren't all that impressive either. In all of this, the dems and republicans had to work together on spending and you will find that a good number of both supported the overspending.
I don't think it's as much the magic jobs will appear, as it is that the far left dems were spouting ideas that would kill jobs like raising taxes on small businesses and taxing energy use more then it already is. Obama's recent comments about how losing your job to India means more jobs in the US is a brazened example of this. The people don't want to have to retrain after being employed and skilled in something for 26 years just to start over on retirement benefits and seniority at something they are entirely unfamiliar with. Then to have a callous attitude towards them on top of that is like pouring lemon juice on a paper cute that feels a lot like a knife wound in the back. At least when clinton negotiated and implements free trade agreements, he pretended to care about the misplaced workers that resulted from them. It's a lot of the reason the entire compassionate conservatism movement was started- because Clinton could do some of the most outrageous crap then get away with it because he cared.
The health care bill should have been trashed from the start, they should have focuses on the actual problems if they were going to get involved at all, and this idea of controlling costs by ensuring a customer base by assigning penalties for not purchasing health insurance is asinine at best. It could have been approached in a much more efficient way with a lot better results.
Because he like you a lot!
Sort of not a work safe link.
Well, not really. You are assuming something that you only know out of hindsight. If you were on a plane that deviated from it's normal flight path, after you realized that, you might be in a position to know the plan was to crash the plane. The problem here is knowing with enough time to do something. There was only 17 minutes between the fist crash and the second. And the recorded communications with both ended mid stream- moments before the crash or because of the crash. Known communications in both of those situations stated that the pilots were killed. So if you had a gun, knew the pilots were dead, how long would it take to figure out if anyone still alive could fly the plane, then kill the terrorists without getting that person killed in the process, then take control of the plane?
Perhaps flight 77 and 93 may have been a bit different, with flight 93, they told them they were all going to die and it appears that the passengers chose to do something about it before others were taken with them. But they heard the flight cabin being taken over back at the tower and heard the terrorist claim there was a bomb on board that they would detonate instructing them that they was going back to the airport to land and give demands. Flight 77 on the other hand was 30 some minutes after the first two flights and there is no record of any communications with the ground at all.
Because unlike on the ground, a stray bullet can kill the only people capable of flying/landing the plane. It's not like you can get up and walk home or to your car right after the gun fight. You are at the mercy of the law of gravity. And this is not even touching the problems with a pressurized cabin environment where a puncture in the side could possible cause a blowout sucking other passengers, air pressure and oxygen with it. It's not like if you miss, the bullet will hit a brick wall or a car and stop or something. It's not like the bullet would likely only kill one innocent bystander if it went through the person or missed them entirely. It could kill every single person on board.
Using a gun in a passenger airplane when shooter isn't trained for the unique circumstances or using special ammunition is a lot like using a Grenade as a tactical weapon in rowboat. Except in this case, knowing how to swim is absolutely useless.
Not really. All they would have to do is come from a country that would allow them to carry weapons onto the plane too. Once in US soil, they simply kill the passengers, overwhelm the cockpit and do the same.
I'm all for an armed and prepared population capable of defending itself. But this is just one of those situations where you only want certain people carrying weapons and the hint of someone else having a weapon would mean an indication or wrong intent. One or two air marshals hidden within the passengers and perhaps one of the pilots would likely be good enough. But if we remember 9/11, one or two of the pilots were in on the plan from the start so the pilot could just use the gun to further the terrorist plot. And something that you might not be noticing or recognizing is that the plane is in a pressurized environment once at cruising altitude. While this might not automagically cause the cabin walls to explode sucking passengers out if you shoot through them (it could), it very well can deplete the oxygen levels and air pressure rapidly creating a life threatening situation for the passengers should you miss your target while trying to be a hero.
Lol.. You and your comic book facts. Oh well, it your going to continue to spout off unsupported nonsense, I guess we are done. There are plenty of grass or range feed cattle in the US and we don't wait until they die of old age first. This means they are not only tender, but mature and flavorful as well. Keep on thinking you know it all though, it just means more goodness for us.
This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan. Before 9/11, if a plane was hijacked, it went to some airport, most likely foreign, and demands were made with the threat of killing the civilians on board being the bargaining strength. Even if you had a gun or a knife on board, you would have been directed by flight crew to not use it as the hijacking was seen more of an inconvenience then a real life threatening situation.
This actually change post 9/11 where they now treat all hijackings as a death sentence.
When I don't have the option of protecting myself and my family by either using a weapon in self defense or removing myself and family from the danger, then yes, violating the 4th amendment in order to ensure we are on an even footing is recommended.
And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified. Also, it should be noted that I only endorse this specifically where other options like escape is impossible. So it's not like I'm advocating search lines to cross the street or anything because some city instituted a gun ban. But when boarding a sealed tube that is going to be 35000 feet from anything I can walk on, I want to know that a reasonable effort was made to weed out the nutcases that would want to kill me for something I have absolutely no connection with outside of being born in a geographical location.
That part where I have to sit inside a sealed tube with you and whoever else comes on board with no easy way to escape the dangers you or whoever else bring about.. Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along. Your right to be loud and obnoxious, again to which I cannot reasonably escape from is terminated too. This is in line just as your right to stick your nose into my business ends about where my fists are swinging and my right to swing my fists ends at the point they make contact with you.
America most certainly was as such. And you seem to be very confused to those four people while ignoring the fact that the majority of companies in America today were started after WWII and aren't publicly traded. What you generally hear about is publicly traded companies because they has a market listing as well as legislatively mandate reporting and compliance requirements. This throws your entire argument into the trash bin.
Lets explore this a little more. For instance, there are about 2790 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. These are medium to large companies. But in the US, there are over 25.4 million companies, the overwhelming majority of which are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses. 5.8 million of those companies are regular companies with a payroll (employees other then the owners) and so on. There are about 3,534 firms in the US that employ 2,500 or more people. This is 700 or more companies then everything listed on the NYSE.
Now what you say might be true if you ignored all of the private companies. But that wouldn't be much of a comparison with reality now would it? It also wouldn't be in line with what I said either.
To be fair, the op was being facetious. There isn't arguing or fighting going on during news broadcasts in America either. That crap happens during opinion oriented shows on News Channels in the US.
Well, it could be that the op doesn't no the difference between a program on a news channel and a news broadcast. I doubt he's that relaxed in the intelligence department though.
How do you figure? You wouldn't have that culture if they didn't create it in the first place. Could you imagine writing a book, publishing it and no one buying it for 7 years, then every tom dick and harry decides to put it on the interweb and they now get it free while you are still flipping burgers and washing dishes for a living?
I would be a bit cautious on claiming EU and UK meat being higher quality. After all, it's those markets in which MAD COW disease first got it's big exposure. Since then, they have tightened some of the rules and regulations, but you are still getting your news from comic books or something. Meat exports to Europe, particularly beef are on the rise.
American Beef is generally superior to European Beff simply because we raise beef cattle specifically for beef and harvest them at a younger more tender age. If you think Shoe leather or cooking the meet so long that you need a crap ton of other ingredients to make it taste good is good meat, then that's just your opinion. But the meat in the US is generally so good, that we don't need a slew of sauces or vegetables to cover the flavor or break down the texture in order to be somewhat presentable. In most cases in the US, a steak cooked medium rare and a slab of butter melting over top of it is more then enough for a great steak.
Oh yea, the hormones and antibiotics aren't as prevalent as you seem to want to think in the US markets. This is nothing but your comic book world view I guess.
Agenda oriented.. The agenda being that instead of meeting criticisms and conflicting lines of thought with rationed logic to persuade the opponents or demonstrate the superior line of thinking, they attempt to squelch the opponents speech keeping their ideas at the forefront and therefor making people think it's the norm.
In other words, it's not trolls making statements as much as people attempting to bury those statements from being seen. The fix, browse at a lower level by default or add points to negetive modded categories.
As for this last election, it makes perfect sense. The people who supported the legislative agenda weren't happy because it didn't go far enough. They stayed home and pouted. The people who apposed it, got pissed and motivated- they showed up. Except for a small few in tight or important races, the enthusiasm simply wasn't there.
You also have the fed up crowed. The people who are simply fed up with the government pulling tricks to get unpopular agendas moving (health care and reconciliation for instance), people who are fed up with the government saying their jobs aren't important, you have to retrain to work in the green job fields, and the people who see this massive attempt to tax and spend with no measurable or perceivable results. They were motivated more or less to just get the incumbent out.
Oh, I get it now, your not really knocking American Cuisine, you are living out irrational fears and prejudices to the fullest extent. Well, good for you then.
Or they can create an environment to which the normal person can actually accelerate in life independent of them or other private parties. You know, how America once was....
Why don't you come on over for a BBQ. I can set you up with some shit that will make you never want to go back home. If you think all Americans eat is hot dogs and burgers, that all cheese in America comes from a tube, and there is only one type of bologna in the US, you need to get your international cuisine news from places other then your comic books and Hawaii Five O reruns.
And yes, I'm been to Europe, I have been to England and you guys have nothing on us- at least nothing that I could find in the short 2 weeks I was there.
How do you know that people who apposed the tax were only thinking about their own pocket over their entire society?
Many people appose things for various reasons, I appose certain welfare programs because they imply an incentive for not working. That doesn't mean I'm out to protect my own pocket, it means I'm not willing to allow the government to trap people into being dependent on them.
Osama isn't behind the US problems. Failure to enforce existing laws, rules, and regulations, and attempting to promote social agendas over fiscal responsibility seems to be.
The Bush Tax cuts wouldn't have had an effect with him as this will all be taxed at the capitol gains rate not his personal income rate. They are both technically income, one however is limited in order to spur activity.
Perhaps what you have seen isn't so much a resurgence of republicans, but a downfall of agenda oriented democrats?
I don't particularly identify with any party either. I tend to be more conservative then liberal politically speaking though.
Maybe it's more of something where people didn't like X and now they decided they don't like Y even more and X is actually tolerable.
Actually, it's more of the dangers of the lifestyle in general. More people are killed from more reckless behavior in the US then in the UK. We do more stupid shit on a regular basis like give some types of guns to anyone over 18 based on nothing more then their desire to have them. We allow juveniles to handle loaded firearms and other weapons (Bow and Arrows) unsupervised for extended lengths of time (while hunting) and so on. We have one of the largest recreational boating populations in the western world, some of the largest lands allotted to motorcycle, quad-atv, and other recreational uses.
But probably the number one risk that would alter the life expectancy quite a bit would be cars. In the US, there is/was about 2.28 cars per household (in 2008) while only about 1.1 cars per household in the UK (at about the time- from 2008 to 2009). This means that more people are driving in the US then in the UK. Gas is also cheaper which generally means that more people are driving for recreational uses verses more restrictive usage like necessities and so on. But something that probably would make this skewed even more would be that in the UK, you typically have to be 17 to get a drivers license and even then, you are restricted to what types of cars you can drive until your 18 or 21. In the US, it differs from state to state, but in most cases, you can start driving at 16 years of age, there is no limits on the types of cars (or non-commercial trucks) and in some areas, with certain hardships you can get a drivers license at age 14 (Ohio is one).
A reflection of this is strongly shown in the UK traffic death statistics in which they listed that in 2006, there were 5.4 road accident deaths per 100,000 population in the UK compared to 14.3 per 100,000 populations in the US. I don't car where you are, if you have almost three times as many people dieing from more or less random occurrences, the life expectancy will be lower and it won't be much on the grounds of health care provided Health care provided is equal in traffic fatalities because it's all either not in the equation (dead on the scene) or life threatening injuries in which not only does car insurance cover, it's illegal in the US for a hospital open to the public to refuse or limit emergency medical treatment based around the ability to pay.
Relax a little. Some people simply cannot build themselves up without tearing someone else down. It's a race to the lowest common denominator with them. It's how they evolved or failed to evolve when the world changed around them.
Why would you think he was talking about adaptation as evolution and not speciation as in what religion would be in conflict with as the op suggested by calling on the young earthers?
I mean seriously, you can legitimately divide evolution and evolutionary theory into two distinct groups. One being adaptation and the other being speciation. One might lead to the other but has never been observed unless someone plays with the definition of species in order to point it out. Now most every religion that I know of would not argue with adaptation but some would argue with speciation. So adaptation provides a mechanism to speciation but does not make speciation true, so when he said adaptation, he was referring specifically to a mechanism and not the entire theory.
It wasn't all the sudden. You simply started paying attention to more then your own preconceived notions and realized that not everyone agreed with you. It's nothing new, it's not a conspiracy, it's just life outside your bubble.