Having taken all of those drugs and more over the last 14 years I'll definitely say that the scrambled and fried effect is a temporary thing, unless you really work at it;)
I not only agree but also say the the ultimate reason some of the drugs were made was different than what was sold to the people. Hemp aka marijuana wasn't made illegal because it was a dangerous drug that caused users to become violent or drove them insane. In 1938, hemp was made illegal with the passage and signing of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the February issue of "Popular Mechanics" had an article saying hemp was the New Billion Dollar Crop. While TFA was late it explains why hemp was made illegal. Hemp is one of the most industrially useful plants. An MIT study concluded an area of hemp can produce as much paper as 3 areas of forest. Henry Ford built a car on his Iron Mountain estate that not only used hemp in the interior but was fueled by hemp. Also back then plastics were made from cellulose produced by plants, and hemp was a good source. So it was seen by those who owned vast tracts of forest they cut down for paper making, oil companies, and Du Pont (Du Pont had patents on how to make plastic from petroleum) as a threat to their wealth.
Another example of a drug being made illegal for ulterior motives was opium. Chinese mostly used opium so racists pushed to make it illegal. Because of racism, as well as Chinese driving wages down, the Chinese Exclusion Act also became law making it illegal for Chinese to immigrate to the US in 1882.
Anyway, good luck with things, forming new habits is harder than it sounds, but well worth it to take advantage of our brain's wonderful auto-pilot features:)
Thanks. I've made some new habits. And broke others, such as smoking. The really hard part is having the desire to keep living. For now I mostly spend several hours a day surfing and watching TV. Since spring I've also been working in my garden as well as riding my bike and or rollerblading, some days I'll do one or the other and some days I'll do both, a few tymes a week.
The set of people for whom this is true is exceptionally small. On the other hand, having a single source for apps, with an absolutely simple method for buying, installing and deleting apps appeals to almost everyone.
I highly doubt it's a small market. A quick look at all of the software available for computers proves that's wrong. I'm not the only one that doesn't like it, heck I've heard other slashdotters complain the only source for software for iPhones is Apple. While a simple one-stop source for most apps may appeal to some, I bet when it's explained the only software that can be installed is software from that one source, and that source arbitrarily approves and rejects the software it offers many of those who do like a single source will not like it any more.
Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
And Apple would not have sold 3 million of them in the past 80 days.
So!!! Apple sells more than one configuration of MacBook/ MacBook Pros too. While Apple only sells two models of iPads with 3 configurations each, and they are not user configurable, they also sell 3 lines of laptops, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and MacBook Airs. Each line is user configurable. If they wanted to Apple could do the same with iPads. Just as Axiotron does Apple can replace MacBook parts to make tablets. And Apple can do it cheaper than Axiotron, then sell them through Apple channels, that is on Apple's online store, in Apple brick and mortar stores, and in third party retailers.
The problem with this notion that "Apple wants to control its users" is that there's absolutely no rational explanation for this. To what ends is this control aimed? Does Steve Jobs just want to poke his head into your life? It makes no sense. It doesn't even make any financial sense, which would at least be rational (but offensive).
I agree, and if I were an Apple shareholder I'd be pushing the board, and trying to get other shareholders to do the same, to do as I've outlined. Or if not to provide a study showing why theses steps would not be profitable.
If you hate Apple, sudo mod me down. That's how you prove I'm wrong, isn't it?
I know this is not part of the post but I want to say I neither hate Apple nor mod people down because I disagree with them. I love some Apple products, specifically Mac Pros and MacBook laptops. What I don't like is some of what Apple does or does not do as well as some board members, executives, and other workers. The same applies to almost all businesses, even Microsoft. British Petroleum I'm not sure about. I definitely don't like a lot I've seen or heard, such as cutting corners to save money.
People seem to think Apple limit the iPhone to the App Store for native apps in order to make money from each app sold, but that's not the reason. The reason is to make the iPhone a more appealing platform to consumers and developers.
If the idea is to make the iPhone more appealing Apple would allow anyone to install any software on iPhones. One reason I would not buy an iPad, even if I had a billion dollars, is because Apple restricts the software I install on it to only the software Apple offers in it's app store. Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
Apple doesn't want to control its users, it wants to control the quality of its products, and it's both difficult to fault them for that
But Apple does want to control its users other wise it would allow users to install software other than what the app store offers. Apple would not be blocking Adobe from offering Flash to users.
They certainly can, but they can't take the whole company like they could with GM.
You miss the point. You said if BP had been an American Company Obama would have taken it. However while it is not an American company it does own American property and Obama has not touched any of BP's property.
I'm not suggesting that Apple can force existing Mac owners to adopt iOS, but they amount of money they can make from a locked down user is so much more then for a regular free user that I would expect that eventually, all Apple products will come with iOS.
I will not buy another Mac if it's OS is iOS. I switched from Windows to OS X and I'll just as easily switch to Ubuntu. Actually I plan on dual booting my Mac with Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
The most likely way to implement this is just to slowly reduce the resources put into the Mac line, and to continue to expand the iOS line until it replaces most of the Mac line (except servers).
Why would Apple do this? It will not reduce the work needed if Apple continues making servers running OS X. As it is though I was looking forward to the iPad before it's release I don't want to get one specifically because it runs PhoneOS not the full OS X. I neither want a crippled OS nor a gatekeeper telling me what software I can install and use.
No, *I* didn't "solve" anything, I simply listen to what the actual facts are from a number of different news and science sources instead of getting my "information" from partisan political sources.
Since you're now down to attacking the messenger without being able to actually refute any of the facts or logical arguments I've presented in any of my replies, you're obviously now running on nothing but ideological fumes, so this will be my last post in this thread.
What facts? You didn't provide any scientific facts. So consider this my last post in this thread.
Why wouldn't you want the system wide open and available for your kids to tinker with?
Because I, in the third person, only have one computer and I don't want it hosed. I, the real me, use my Mac for different things and have set up more than one user account so that working in one I will not hose the whole system. Among the things I use it for is development, financial planning, photography, and programming. Only one account has administrator privileges, and I only log into that one to install software, to run updates, or for maintenance.
The same thing applies to labor unions as well. They are free to spend money on political candidates even though its members may be very much opposed.
I don't think that either should be allowed to contribute, but if unions are allowed, then corporations should too.
None of them should be allowed. Neither should groups like the AAA. I've been a member of the AAA for years but I hate that they campaign against raising fuel economy standards.
On the other hand I will not support the ACLU period. To it, while most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, the second amendment's right to bare arms is not. They, the ACLU, says there are other organizations that defend the right to bare arms, well there are other organizations that support all the rights the ACLU does defend too, and I'll support them first. Such as the EFF.
Now we have a Federal Government actively standing in the way of states trying to prevent an ecological disaster while at the same time using the same disaster as a means to eventually forever block drilling
Citation needed!!!
In fact this admin supports off-shore drilling. Prior to the accident it proposed lifting restrictions on drilling off-shore. "On March 31, 2010, President Obama proposed to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time".
While you are technically correct, the press recognized that BP had little choice and reported that Congress ordered them to. Congress did loudly order it, ever though they had no legal muscle behind it. Doesn't that seem abusive?
Yes it was abusive but BPS didn't have it due process violated. As TFA says, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'", shows courts can and do overrule congress and presidents.
I just object to the bullying and discarding of proper procedures. We have a court system for these kinds of things.
And BP did not use the court system when it could have. Let's copy that again, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'"
To allow a single man to extract money from a corporation, without due process, is to create a lawless society.
In fact BP did not have to set up the escrow account, if it wanted and Obama tried to seize BP assets BP could have sued. And judges do tell the government it went too far. The judge in TFA did just that, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'".
What about the Democrat Congressman who physically assaulted, plus grabbed by the neck and put in a chokehold, a student asking questions?
I haven't heard of this, but if it did happen then the miscreant, congressman, should be made to pay.
I think there's a HUGE difference between a guy who thinks it is wrong for a president to have power to extract money from a company (no due process of law)
Obama does not have that power, BP caved in. If BP had wanted to it could have sued the government. And as TFA's judge showed the court can find what the government did was wrong.
The problem Barton complained of was not that BP had to pay for damage it caused, but rather the extra-legal medium for compelling the payments. The USA is (or was) governed by the rule of law, and obligations such as BP's are judged and enforced by the courts. Obama has peformed an end run around the courts by pressuring BP to set up this $20b fund.
BP did not have to comply, as this judge has shown the courts can invalidate a president's actions. That BP caved in to Obama isn't Obama's fault but BP's.
Yes, they have to prove that the thing which fell was in my yard and that that's what injured them, they don't have to prove that it's my fault that it fell(they might have to prove that it's not their fault that it fell).
Actually they don't have to prove it's not their fault, depending on what state you're in. About 10 years ago I found that out. In the middle of the night, well after midnight, I saw that we had a visitor. A friend of my nephew rode her bike to my sister's home, where I had my own apartment. In daylight I asked my sister about the bike I saw outside. She ended up calling the girl's parents about it, she told me that if she did not and the girl had an accident when coming over again my sister could be sued. What is this shit? Being responsible for another parent' kids when they don't have control themselves?
The point is that the relationship between me and the contractor is my relationship, not the relationship of the person who is suing me. The fact that they didn't do their job is not their problem, it's mine since I'm the one who had an arrangement with them.
That may be true but you may be able to sue or charge them with trespass. Unless of course the laws are screwed up there too, as if a property owner has to have Israel build a wall around the property to avoid being sued. That is if the local government or property association doesn't sue you for building the wall.
The causes are *individual people* employed by *one* company on *one* of many operations by it and many other companies both foreign & domestic, broke regulations already in place and knowingly took unsafe shortcuts that were and are not typical or standard practice, and the rigs were all re-inspected shortly after the DH incident with this in mind and found to be well within compliance other than a small number of very minor violations, few affecting actual integrity of the drilling and well itself.
WOW! you've solved what scientists and experts have been investigating for weeks. Perhaps they need you to teach them since they are so slow.
Are you saying that lenin did not do forced nationalisation or that the boards of AIG + co are communist sympathisers? Or is there there something I am missing here?
One, I said no such thing. And two, I think this is quite clear: "if you think communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization you are the one who needs their head examined. Even wealthy people supported communists."
Yes I do, you obviously don't though. Yes, people and businesses are due due process when their property is taken, however none of BP's property has been taken yet. BP voluntarily setup an escrow account and deposited money in it. There was political pressure but BP could have told Obama to take a hike. As New Orleans' federal judge proved, which TFA is about, a court of law can declare the government does not have the ability to take something.
As for the victims of this spill, they have claim too, but you can't ignore the laws, constitution, and set procedures contrary to them just to satisfy your sense of empathy or anger. IF we did that, we could see things like a right to a fair trial or trial by a jury of our peers disappear just as easily when someone else finds the need convenient.
The Constitution lost meaning many years ago. Today politicians use it for toilet paper, both Democrats and Republicans. Obama is just the most recent example. His predecessor, Bush, trashed the Constitution as well. There was no due process for prisoners at Gitmo. Hell there was no due process in the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. The feds have been denying states states rights. Bush went after CA after the state approved medical marijuana.
If the USA's Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be calling for another revolution. As Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Due process my ass. You seriously want to tell thousands of gulf fishermen that they need to hire lawyers, initiate a lawsuit, and fight for their lost wages? With what money are these fishermen going to hire said lawyers? BP has enough lawyers they could tie the lawsuits up for years while these guys starve.
That's what the fishermen in Alaska did after the Exxon Valdez spill. More than 20 years they are still waiting to be paid.
This accident was in no way caused by any sort of malicious behavior.
BS!!! BP did whatever they could do to reduce costs.
From day one BP waved that and said they would pay every dime of cleanup costs, and compensate every legitimate claim of loss caused by the spill.
From day one BP has lied, lied, and lied again. First they said only about 1000 gallons were leaking a day. Then it was 5000 gallons. Now we know it's more than 10,000 barrels. They said the first attempt to cap the well wold work. But it didn't. Neither did the second or third. Then they hired security firms for the beaches and those guards kicked reporters, those trying to help the cleanup, and others off those beaches. Parish presidents in Alabama have consistently complained about stuff like this.
They have definitely proven that their word is good
The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism.
Come on, the government got shares in return for massive investment, and massive loans at under market interest rates, at the agreement of the companies, following relevant laws! If you think this can somehow be compared to forced nationalisation then you need your head examined.
Come on, if you think communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization you are the one who needs their head examined. Even wealthy people supported communists. Armand Hammer, president and CEO of Occidental Petroleum, was a friend of Lenin's. The wiki article say he bragged he was a friend of both Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Throughout the years of the Cold War he could go to the Soviet Union whenever he felt like it. Che Guevara who was well known for his support of the and fighting in Cuban Revolution and communism came from a relatively wealthy Argentinean family.
the Supreme Court has been very friendly toward government asset seizures for generations.
This Supreme Court is very friendly to corporations, it even ruled they have more rights than real people do when they ruled corporations can spend money on political candidates. If I am a stockholder of that corporation but I oppose the candidate too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Having taken all of those drugs and more over the last 14 years I'll definitely say that the scrambled and fried effect is a temporary thing, unless you really work at it ;)
I not only agree but also say the the ultimate reason some of the drugs were made was different than what was sold to the people. Hemp aka marijuana wasn't made illegal because it was a dangerous drug that caused users to become violent or drove them insane. In 1938, hemp was made illegal with the passage and signing of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the February issue of "Popular Mechanics" had an article saying hemp was the New Billion Dollar Crop. While TFA was late it explains why hemp was made illegal. Hemp is one of the most industrially useful plants. An MIT study concluded an area of hemp can produce as much paper as 3 areas of forest. Henry Ford built a car on his Iron Mountain estate that not only used hemp in the interior but was fueled by hemp. Also back then plastics were made from cellulose produced by plants, and hemp was a good source. So it was seen by those who owned vast tracts of forest they cut down for paper making, oil companies, and Du Pont (Du Pont had patents on how to make plastic from petroleum) as a threat to their wealth.
Another example of a drug being made illegal for ulterior motives was opium. Chinese mostly used opium so racists pushed to make it illegal. Because of racism, as well as Chinese driving wages down, the Chinese Exclusion Act also became law making it illegal for Chinese to immigrate to the US in 1882.
Anyway, good luck with things, forming new habits is harder than it sounds, but well worth it to take advantage of our brain's wonderful auto-pilot features :)
Thanks. I've made some new habits. And broke others, such as smoking. The really hard part is having the desire to keep living. For now I mostly spend several hours a day surfing and watching TV. Since spring I've also been working in my garden as well as riding my bike and or rollerblading, some days I'll do one or the other and some days I'll do both, a few tymes a week.
Falcon
The set of people for whom this is true is exceptionally small. On the other hand, having a single source for apps, with an absolutely simple method for buying, installing and deleting apps appeals to almost everyone.
I highly doubt it's a small market. A quick look at all of the software available for computers proves that's wrong. I'm not the only one that doesn't like it, heck I've heard other slashdotters complain the only source for software for iPhones is Apple. While a simple one-stop source for most apps may appeal to some, I bet when it's explained the only software that can be installed is software from that one source, and that source arbitrarily approves and rejects the software it offers many of those who do like a single source will not like it any more.
Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
And Apple would not have sold 3 million of them in the past 80 days.
So!!! Apple sells more than one configuration of MacBook/ MacBook Pros too. While Apple only sells two models of iPads with 3 configurations each, and they are not user configurable, they also sell 3 lines of laptops, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and MacBook Airs. Each line is user configurable. If they wanted to Apple could do the same with iPads. Just as Axiotron does Apple can replace MacBook parts to make tablets. And Apple can do it cheaper than Axiotron, then sell them through Apple channels, that is on Apple's online store, in Apple brick and mortar stores, and in third party retailers.
The problem with this notion that "Apple wants to control its users" is that there's absolutely no rational explanation for this. To what ends is this control aimed? Does Steve Jobs just want to poke his head into your life? It makes no sense. It doesn't even make any financial sense, which would at least be rational (but offensive).
I agree, and if I were an Apple shareholder I'd be pushing the board, and trying to get other shareholders to do the same, to do as I've outlined. Or if not to provide a study showing why theses steps would not be profitable.
If you hate Apple, sudo mod me down. That's how you prove I'm wrong, isn't it?
I know this is not part of the post but I want to say I neither hate Apple nor mod people down because I disagree with them. I love some Apple products, specifically Mac Pros and MacBook laptops. What I don't like is some of what Apple does or does not do as well as some board members, executives, and other workers. The same applies to almost all businesses, even Microsoft. British Petroleum I'm not sure about. I definitely don't like a lot I've seen or heard, such as cutting corners to save money.
Falcon
No, you're the troll and this is my last post in this thread. I won't even bother reading past what I put in the subject line.
Falcon
People seem to think Apple limit the iPhone to the App Store for native apps in order to make money from each app sold, but that's not the reason. The reason is to make the iPhone a more appealing platform to consumers and developers.
If the idea is to make the iPhone more appealing Apple would allow anyone to install any software on iPhones. One reason I would not buy an iPad, even if I had a billion dollars, is because Apple restricts the software I install on it to only the software Apple offers in it's app store. Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
Apple doesn't want to control its users, it wants to control the quality of its products, and it's both difficult to fault them for that
But Apple does want to control its users other wise it would allow users to install software other than what the app store offers. Apple would not be blocking Adobe from offering Flash to users.
Falcon
They certainly can, but they can't take the whole company like they could with GM.
You miss the point. You said if BP had been an American Company Obama would have taken it. However while it is not an American company it does own American property and Obama has not touched any of BP's property.
Falcon
options.
I'm not suggesting that Apple can force existing Mac owners to adopt iOS, but they amount of money they can make from a locked down user is so much more then for a regular free user that I would expect that eventually, all Apple products will come with iOS.
I will not buy another Mac if it's OS is iOS. I switched from Windows to OS X and I'll just as easily switch to Ubuntu. Actually I plan on dual booting my Mac with Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
The most likely way to implement this is just to slowly reduce the resources put into the Mac line, and to continue to expand the iOS line until it replaces most of the Mac line (except servers).
Why would Apple do this? It will not reduce the work needed if Apple continues making servers running OS X. As it is though I was looking forward to the iPad before it's release I don't want to get one specifically because it runs PhoneOS not the full OS X. I neither want a crippled OS nor a gatekeeper telling me what software I can install and use.
Falcon
No, *I* didn't "solve" anything, I simply listen to what the actual facts are from a number of different news and science sources instead of getting my "information" from partisan political sources.
Really? I asked ScienceDaily what caused the oil spill in the gulf of mexico but I didn't find your actual facts. I didn't find the answer on Scienceblips. Science Centric didn't answer it either.
Since you're now down to attacking the messenger without being able to actually refute any of the facts or logical arguments I've presented in any of my replies, you're obviously now running on nothing but ideological fumes, so this will be my last post in this thread.
What facts? You didn't provide any scientific facts. So consider this my last post in this thread.
Falcon
Why wouldn't you want the system wide open and available for your kids to tinker with?
Because I, in the third person, only have one computer and I don't want it hosed. I, the real me, use my Mac for different things and have set up more than one user account so that working in one I will not hose the whole system. Among the things I use it for is development, financial planning, photography, and programming. Only one account has administrator privileges, and I only log into that one to install software, to run updates, or for maintenance.
Falcon
The same thing applies to labor unions as well. They are free to spend money on political candidates even though its members may be very much opposed.
I don't think that either should be allowed to contribute, but if unions are allowed, then corporations should too.
None of them should be allowed. Neither should groups like the AAA. I've been a member of the AAA for years but I hate that they campaign against raising fuel economy standards.
On the other hand I will not support the ACLU period. To it, while most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, the second amendment's right to bare arms is not. They, the ACLU, says there are other organizations that defend the right to bare arms, well there are other organizations that support all the rights the ACLU does defend too, and I'll support them first. Such as the EFF.
Now we have a Federal Government actively standing in the way of states trying to prevent an ecological disaster while at the same time using the same disaster as a means to eventually forever block drilling
Citation needed!!!
In fact this admin supports off-shore drilling. Prior to the accident it proposed lifting restrictions on drilling off-shore. "On March 31, 2010, President Obama proposed to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time".
Falcon
While you are technically correct, the press recognized that BP had little choice and reported that Congress ordered them to. Congress did loudly order it, ever though they had no legal muscle behind it. Doesn't that seem abusive?
Yes it was abusive but BPS didn't have it due process violated. As TFA says, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'", shows courts can and do overrule congress and presidents.
I just object to the bullying and discarding of proper procedures. We have a court system for these kinds of things.
And BP did not use the court system when it could have. Let's copy that again, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'"
Falcon
To allow a single man to extract money from a corporation, without due process, is to create a lawless society.
In fact BP did not have to set up the escrow account, if it wanted and Obama tried to seize BP assets BP could have sued. And judges do tell the government it went too far. The judge in TFA did just that, "Judge lifts offshore drilling ban as `overbearing'".
Falcon
He has handle this as best as any president could be reasonably expected to.
No he didn't. Obama let BP handle it when he could have called all the experts around the world to help.
Falcon
What about the Democrat Congressman who physically assaulted, plus grabbed by the neck and put in a chokehold, a student asking questions?
I haven't heard of this, but if it did happen then the miscreant, congressman, should be made to pay.
I think there's a HUGE difference between a guy who thinks it is wrong for a president to have power to extract money from a company (no due process of law)
Obama does not have that power, BP caved in. If BP had wanted to it could have sued the government. And as TFA's judge showed the court can find what the government did was wrong.
Falcon
The problem Barton complained of was not that BP had to pay for damage it caused, but rather the extra-legal medium for compelling the payments. The USA is (or was) governed by the rule of law, and obligations such as BP's are judged and enforced by the courts. Obama has peformed an end run around the courts by pressuring BP to set up this $20b fund.
BP did not have to comply, as this judge has shown the courts can invalidate a president's actions. That BP caved in to Obama isn't Obama's fault but BP's.
Falcon
Yes, they have to prove that the thing which fell was in my yard and that that's what injured them, they don't have to prove that it's my fault that it fell(they might have to prove that it's not their fault that it fell).
Actually they don't have to prove it's not their fault, depending on what state you're in. About 10 years ago I found that out. In the middle of the night, well after midnight, I saw that we had a visitor. A friend of my nephew rode her bike to my sister's home, where I had my own apartment. In daylight I asked my sister about the bike I saw outside. She ended up calling the girl's parents about it, she told me that if she did not and the girl had an accident when coming over again my sister could be sued. What is this shit? Being responsible for another parent' kids when they don't have control themselves?
The point is that the relationship between me and the contractor is my relationship, not the relationship of the person who is suing me. The fact that they didn't do their job is not their problem, it's mine since I'm the one who had an arrangement with them.
That may be true but you may be able to sue or charge them with trespass. Unless of course the laws are screwed up there too, as if a property owner has to have Israel build a wall around the property to avoid being sued. That is if the local government or property association doesn't sue you for building the wall.
Falcon
BP stands for British Petroleum. If BP was an American company Obama would probably already have taken it.
So? BP still owns property and holds drilling concessions in the US. The US can take those.
Falcon
The causes are *individual people* employed by *one* company on *one* of many operations by it and many other companies both foreign & domestic, broke regulations already in place and knowingly took unsafe shortcuts that were and are not typical or standard practice, and the rigs were all re-inspected shortly after the DH incident with this in mind and found to be well within compliance other than a small number of very minor violations, few affecting actual integrity of the drilling and well itself.
WOW! you've solved what scientists and experts have been investigating for weeks. Perhaps they need you to teach them since they are so slow.
Falcon
What "this"? What "above"?
Are you saying that lenin did not do forced nationalisation or that the boards of AIG + co are communist sympathisers? Or is there there something I am missing here?
One, I said no such thing. And two, I think this is quite clear: "if you think communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization you are the one who needs their head examined. Even wealthy people supported communists."
Falcon
Yes I do, you obviously don't though. Yes, people and businesses are due due process when their property is taken, however none of BP's property has been taken yet. BP voluntarily setup an escrow account and deposited money in it. There was political pressure but BP could have told Obama to take a hike. As New Orleans' federal judge proved, which TFA is about, a court of law can declare the government does not have the ability to take something.
As for the victims of this spill, they have claim too, but you can't ignore the laws, constitution, and set procedures contrary to them just to satisfy your sense of empathy or anger. IF we did that, we could see things like a right to a fair trial or trial by a jury of our peers disappear just as easily when someone else finds the need convenient.
The Constitution lost meaning many years ago. Today politicians use it for toilet paper, both Democrats and Republicans. Obama is just the most recent example. His predecessor, Bush, trashed the Constitution as well. There was no due process for prisoners at Gitmo. Hell there was no due process in the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. The feds have been denying states states rights. Bush went after CA after the state approved medical marijuana.
If the USA's Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be calling for another revolution. As Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Falcon
Due process my ass. You seriously want to tell thousands of gulf fishermen that they need to hire lawyers, initiate a lawsuit, and fight for their lost wages? With what money are these fishermen going to hire said lawyers? BP has enough lawyers they could tie the lawsuits up for years while these guys starve.
That's what the fishermen in Alaska did after the Exxon Valdez spill. More than 20 years they are still waiting to be paid.
Falcon
This accident was in no way caused by any sort of malicious behavior.
BS!!! BP did whatever they could do to reduce costs.
From day one BP waved that and said they would pay every dime of cleanup costs, and compensate every legitimate claim of loss caused by the spill.
From day one BP has lied, lied, and lied again. First they said only about 1000 gallons were leaking a day. Then it was 5000 gallons. Now we know it's more than 10,000 barrels. They said the first attempt to cap the well wold work. But it didn't. Neither did the second or third. Then they hired security firms for the beaches and those guards kicked reporters, those trying to help the cleanup, and others off those beaches. Parish presidents in Alabama have consistently complained about stuff like this.
They have definitely proven that their word is good
No, they have proven they are a pack of liars.
Falcon
I understand getting people money faster instead of the 20 year Exxon-Valdeeze thing, but this seemed so close to coercion.
How do you expect people to get money faster without an escrow account?
And what this spill has done isn't coercion?
Falcon
The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism.
Come on, the government got shares in return for massive investment, and massive loans at under market interest rates, at the agreement of the companies, following relevant laws! If you think this can somehow be compared to forced nationalisation then you need your head examined.
Come on, if you think communism and socialism excludes government investments and needs forced nationalization you are the one who needs their head examined. Even wealthy people supported communists. Armand Hammer, president and CEO of Occidental Petroleum, was a friend of Lenin's. The wiki article say he bragged he was a friend of both Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Throughout the years of the Cold War he could go to the Soviet Union whenever he felt like it. Che Guevara who was well known for his support of the and fighting in Cuban Revolution and communism came from a relatively wealthy Argentinean family.
Falcon
the Supreme Court has been very friendly toward government asset seizures for generations.
This Supreme Court is very friendly to corporations, it even ruled they have more rights than real people do when they ruled corporations can spend money on political candidates. If I am a stockholder of that corporation but I oppose the candidate too bad.
Falcon