You are also missing the point where the US gave Saddam Weapons and training which included Chemical warfare. The US did so hoping Saddam would wipe out Iran during the war. You know, the war where Saddam used chemical artillery weapons regularly and nobody bitches about those. He used them against "those" people so shhhhhhh.
I was not going to bitch about your previous post where you quote the Clinton adviser. Who was also one of the people on the staff giving Saddam Chemical weapons and technology to use against Iran just a few years before he was suddenly a bad guy. I won't tolerate this kind of lie.
So, what exactly was being lied about? There were WMD found in Iraq, so it couldn't be that, maybe that Saddam wasn't willing to use them?
Your link points to a 1988 attack on the Kurds which the US is at least partially responsible for since we gave Saddam chemical weapons and technology to fight Iraq with in their war.
After the first Gulf war there were no WMDs in Iraq and none were found in or after the 2nd Gulf war. The second war started on massive deception and lies, like "mobile WMD plants" and "SCUDS" capable of delivering the massive stockpiles of nerve agent being made in those mobile plants with no possible defense. The biggest lie was about Yellow Cake and Dirty bombs, completely fabricated by Italian intelligence and passed off as true to the US Public.
I'm not pro Saddam by any stretch of the imagination. I was in the Army for 5 years, honorably discharged literally days before Gulf 1. Our Politicians (not military persons) happen to scare me more than Saddam ever did. Saddam never lied about his reasons for killing people and wanting war. In fact he was open and up front about who he hated and wanted to kill. Our politicians on the other hand have no problem lying through their teeth to get their wars and killings. In fact they will plot with foreign governments for years to get their wars and killings.
Lesson: Don't start spouting history quotes without a good amount of history knowledge and fact checking. Now go kindly pound a bucket of sand up your ass!
Something falling into the category of fallacy does not automatically mean it's wrong.
Unfortunately, this claim is more than partially true. You only need to review median household income, numbers on government assistance, and full time employment numbers to make this proof.
Politicians (not limited to Obama) have been manipulating numbers for decades. The eligible pool of workers keeps shrinking as do unemployment numbers, yet our population is not shrinking. It does not take a high degree of intelligence to know this is a manipulation favoring the politicians so they can falsely claim unemployment is lower. It should also not take a high degree of intelligence to know that if you are lied to once, you should make sure you are not lied to twice by the same source.
You failing to check facts is at least as idiotic as calling someone else idiotic for not expressing the thought in the way you wanted it.
Which does not translate to the Government being responsible for creating jobs. It translates to not interfering with jobs and protecting the public from racketeers and similar criminals.
You memorize a single strong password for a key storage program like Keepass, and only bother with 1 strong password being changed at your recommended frequency. I can change all of my other passwords randomly as often as I want and don't need to remember them all. I keep the encrypted DBs on a Thumb drive in my pocket, and a backup in a safe.
While not perfect this setup is safer due to the lack of a keylogger picking things up. No system is perfect so I go for "better" and "best practices". I would much rather have a 20+ character password for my DB I change every 9-12 months than try and remember dozens and dozens of various passwords I have for everything else.
Oh, I should add that I use multiple databases for multiple purposes. I don't mix business and pleasure.
And do you truly believe he would have been both in the race, and receiving this much attention if certain people were not in political trouble? I can't change your belief if you do, just show you an alternative viewpoint to inspect.
The claim I have refuted is your original claim that it's cheaper for a person to have a Broadband connection than a land line. That was your whole point in making the false claim about a phone being only 10.00 a month if a Cable company provides the service.
So are you conceding your case and admitting you are both incorrect and ignorant? Or will you now claim that despite thread history you intended to argue all along that it was simply better for a person to have a computer. Generally speaking of course.
If you had not noticed by my comments, I had you pegged a while back. Meaning I won't hold my breath for that apology and admission.
Difference in opinion, not really a correction. I used to be of an opinion similar to yours, but decided that it was impossible that politicians were either wrong or unlucky 100% of the time. You may see the probability differently, which is fine.
Last try, because after this you are simply content with living in fantasy and refuse to see reality.
If you can not afford to eat, how do you afford to pay for the increase in electricity from a "free" computer? This is one of numerous concerns to a person in real poverty. This is what I was stating before, a thing you take for granted because you have never been in poverty.
Plus of course once you have the internet you have access to things like craigslist which are really useful when you are broke.
Ha ha, too funny. You are simply refusing to see poverty for what it is. That is called being delusional, grats on that one.
Slice it however you like, it's still a cake. More specifically, in either case the claim is incorrect. The Government already has the power to break up monopolies, and has already done so several times. The Sherman Act and Clayton Act ensured that the power was clearly defined.
Going a bit further, I am extremely Libertarian minded. One of the few powers I believe the Government should have it to protect the public from monopolies and predatory behaviors money can bring about. You won't get me to rally for Government action on most issues.
Your second paragraph would simply take too long to debate, but I completely disagree. In simple terms, the Press (Media) has a specific purpose which is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Monopolization prevents Media/Press from doing it's job and working _for_ the citizens.
This one may generate some good discussion, even though it's either misguided or incorrectly/confusingly stating issues. I don't agree that it's a "Troll" and will point out that a different opinion does not make it a troll. I do hope someone with Mod points corrects the rating.
Does Government want the monopolization? Absolutely, it's so much easier to control fewer media companies and this is about control.
Has deregulation caused the problems? Sure, but those go back quite a ways. The debates allowing mergers really started in the late 80s under Reagan. The deregulation happened under Clinton's first term. It took a long time to monopolize the media, but that should have been an obvious desire. Too much too soon and people would have worried and stopped the process. People in Government, contrary to popular myth, are actually quite intelligent and understand things like incremental change and rhetoric. They also happen to enjoy Sophistry and Rhetoric, which makes it a lose lose for society.
Massive roll backs? It was not a lot of deregulation. The regulation is the easy part to put in place. The hard part is all of the court rulings (I'll agree if you claimed it mostly Kangaroo) which allowed the deregulation before and after it occurred. Also the court rulings which allowed dishonesty in media (Florida Supreme Court vs. Fox) are going to be messy.
Non sequitur? This does not require more government. This requires action from the US Department of Justice which already exists for the exact purpose of protecting the public.
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media? I find that much more disturbing, and would ask that the people petition the government to break up the monopolies.
I would think that asking the question would have made it obvious that I did not follow the links, but I also believe you either completely misunderstand my position or are intentionally ignoring it. More on this as we go on...
Both comcast and centurytel have programs which allow qualified low income families with children to get 1.5Mbps broadband for ~$10/month.
Broadband != Phone service. You said I can get a phone for 10.00/month if I am in poverty. You just moved the goal post, but at least this was obvious.
It doesn't appear to be an introductory rate and I don't see any obvious requirements that you have cable tv or phone service from them. Comcast will even sell you a low cost computer and come to your house and set it up and show you the basics of using it.
Hang on a second, you seem to be equating poverty with lower income brackets. They are not the same thing at all. If I have trouble affording a phone for 20.00 a month what the hell gives you any idea that I can pay for a computer even at a discount? What makes you think I can afford the change in my electricity bill? What makes you think I have a TV, let alone a TV that can hook up to cable? Those are all rhetorical questions, because you really can't be that delusional.
Comcast charge a bunch more for phone service, but once you've got cable internet you can easily sign up for google voice, get a free local phone number and (with the purchase of a cheap headset) you can take phone calls and receive voicemail.
You implied my claims were incorrect about the cost and that your links would refute my claim, yet here we see plain as day that my claim was exactly correct. You still fail to understand, or simply ignore, reality. If a person can not afford a box of mac&cheese, how do they afford High Speed Internet? How can they afford phones, PCs, and TVs to use any of this stuff when they can't eat? Again, rhetorical questions because you still can't be that foolish.
These seem like programs that are absolutely targeted at the use case that the OP is describing. I'm asking you why, if you were eligible for a program like that, that you'd suggest getting a landline instead of cable/dsl?
Because these programs have requirements, which I have expressed several times. Cable/DSL is absolutely useless without an expensive device to use them. 10.00/month for a service which requires 200.00 in device costs every year or so (sooner if something breaks, gets stolen, etc..) is not 10.00/month. It is (200.00/duration + 10.00/month)/month. That is for the Broadband only, not the phone which you need to have for finding and maintaining jobs. That is another 10.00/month + device_cost/duration.
It is mathematically impossible for your 10.00/month broadband cost to be cheaper for a phone, than a standard phone.
I'm just saying, it's almost impossible not to be able to afford $10 per month. Just as an example...
I am just saying to live the life and then open your mouth about how easy or hard it is to get 10.00 every month for a service you don't need. Have you ever applied for food stamps, housing assistance, etc..? Have you ever applied to a charity? Have you ever missed meals for days because you could not afford food? Ever have a room mate, which you established to save money, steal all your stuff and leave you nothing?
Until you live the life, stop making BS claims about how things you take for granted are easy for other people. I gave you the assignment, go do the work.
I think we can both agree that wireless requires an expensive phone and expensive plan. Are you claiming that a Cable company land line is different than an AT&T land line? I don't see it that way, but I'll play along for the sake of argument. Comcast will give you Cable service for less than 10.00 a month for the phone (including the phone), or is that the bundled price with Internet and/or Cable TV? At least where I live, the latter is true and the former is false. Its also a 6 months at 19.99 or so, and not 19.99 for long durations of time.
I believe what is missing is that people take pretty much everything for granted, until they have to live without. If you are fiscally responsible and in poverty, life is extremely difficult. Let alone trying to dig yourself out of poverty. Odds are not in favor of someone getting out of poverty, but people do it all the time. Certainly not a majority of people.
If you are fine living in poverty and don't mind sitting in poverty for extended time (often a lifetime), there are programs which can help you.
I don't believe people like you are making light of the situation, I believe that people are grossly ignorant. The social experiment I gave above is really easy to replicate, but lets face facts. It's easier for people to maintain a delusion of "all those people deserve what they get" than do the work and say "Hey, this poverty thing sucks!".
Regardless of how current my situation was, you seem to be ignoring basic facts. A land line today costs less than 20.00 and includes phone(s). YMMV depending on your location and installer. Compared to the cheapest plan and cell phones today it's not even close, the land line is still cheaper. Oh I know, some turd company has a 9 year contract for the same price and gives you a phone. Any number of situations throws that on it's head, like the cheap ass phone they provide breaking or the company going out of business every 6 months and transferring you to a "new" company with a different contract.
Are you asking where/why/when I lived in poverty? Nope, I don't know you that well. I also won't tell you how I got out of poverty (too long for a/. post), just that it was not very easy to do.
To your "it's only 1-2 hours" I will tell you that while in poverty I worked 2 jobs, both full time. It paid for a small 1 bedroom apartment, insurance for my car (sure as hell was not new), renters insurance, gas to get to/from work, and my standard utilities (electricity, land line, water, gas). I had a bit left over for food most of the time but nothing for clothes and shoes. If not for gifting holidays I'd have been naked and unable to work. Many times I had to choose between eating and paying a bill, and there were at least a couple occasions I had to steal food. I could not drink and party even if someone else paid for it, I'd miss work and lose a job. I had no health insurance, because minimum wage jobs won't have any in the majority of cases.
Do the social experiment. Quit your job and give up everything you have including your college degrees and job experience (assuming you have them). This will give you enough on an application to land a minimum wage job. Try to live off that, or even 2 full time jobs paying minimum wage.
Assistance? If you can swallow your pride and apply to live off the government dime, you have to give up your job(s). This will keep you in a perpetual state of poverty, but sure, you can get assistance.
Your statement indicates that you have one of two possible beliefs. First, you may believe that 100% of poverty is caused by drugs, booze, and cigarettes? Alternatively, you may be attempting to claim that poverty pushes 100% of the population living that way into drugs, booze, and cigarettes.
Perhaps you meant to say something other than an absolutely false generalization and wish to apologize for being incorrect and induce dialogue on how poverty impacts everyone differently?
The 10.00 per month is meaningless to a family who is in poverty. "It's only 10.00" sounds really good when you are not in poverty. I came from poverty so know what it's like not to be able to eat because I had a bill to pay.
Perhaps you are volunteering to pay some of those 10.00/month fees for families and I just misunderstand, but you can call me a skeptic.
There are only a few AC 130s in actively use and less than 50 were ever built. The air frame is a C 130 cargo plane, not a fighter class ship. The computer controls for the Gun systems is custom built, as are various cannons and cannon mounts. The platform for the 105 was custom built for each plane, as is the fire control and loader. Meaning that the AC 130 would not only cost more money than A10s to build in bulk, but lack all survive-ability on the battlefield. The AC 130 has no loiter time or capacity for damage, it's too slow for hit and run missions. This means it would not be able to perform as close air support.
You may as well claim that the U-2 should replace the F117, because that is the level of ignorance and stupidity you have shown (and you may actually think something so ridiculous). I have worked with AC 130s and A 10s in the field (US Army) so I know very well what both are capable of. Instead of repeating ignorance go do the goddamn homework so you have at least a chance of looking partially intelligent in a conversation.
I never said the F35 was a suitable replacement, so stop inventing words I never said. Go back and read it again! Prick!
This is not simply a product of automation. The Government pays companies to ship manual jobs overseas both directly and indirectly. We are producing less _and_ automation is taking away a percentage of the remaining menial jobs.
I really fail to grasp why people "guess" at answers they could easily find if they bothered to try.
My demeanor is not piss and vinegar, nor am I waking up on the wrong side of the bed, or anything else you wish to imagine. I simply refuse to coddle people who continue to believe delusional bullshit, and further refuse accept responsibility for their actions and words. My first response was cordial, but your defense of your irrational position and failure to take responsibility for your written words resulted in a harsher response.
Your request that I need to disprove your speculation of "they may have been under investigation" is so horribly illogical I can only counter with a metaphor. "T-Rex meat tasted like candy." Using your broken logic the only way you can counter my statement is to prove me wrong.
See how that works, or do you think it only counts if you make an invalid unsubstantiated claim?
Take note of your poor use of grammar if it was incorrect, apologize and learn from your mistake. You maintain a path of "nuh uh, I didn't mean what I wrote". The first is the mature method of handling the situation, the second is the infantile method you have engated thus far.
Slashdot Mirror
You are also missing the point where the US gave Saddam Weapons and training which included Chemical warfare. The US did so hoping Saddam would wipe out Iran during the war. You know, the war where Saddam used chemical artillery weapons regularly and nobody bitches about those. He used them against "those" people so shhhhhhh.
I was not going to bitch about your previous post where you quote the Clinton adviser. Who was also one of the people on the staff giving Saddam Chemical weapons and technology to use against Iran just a few years before he was suddenly a bad guy. I won't tolerate this kind of lie.
So, what exactly was being lied about? There were WMD found in Iraq, so it couldn't be that, maybe that Saddam wasn't willing to use them?
Your link points to a 1988 attack on the Kurds which the US is at least partially responsible for since we gave Saddam chemical weapons and technology to fight Iraq with in their war.
After the first Gulf war there were no WMDs in Iraq and none were found in or after the 2nd Gulf war. The second war started on massive deception and lies, like "mobile WMD plants" and "SCUDS" capable of delivering the massive stockpiles of nerve agent being made in those mobile plants with no possible defense. The biggest lie was about Yellow Cake and Dirty bombs, completely fabricated by Italian intelligence and passed off as true to the US Public.
I'm not pro Saddam by any stretch of the imagination. I was in the Army for 5 years, honorably discharged literally days before Gulf 1. Our Politicians (not military persons) happen to scare me more than Saddam ever did. Saddam never lied about his reasons for killing people and wanting war. In fact he was open and up front about who he hated and wanted to kill. Our politicians on the other hand have no problem lying through their teeth to get their wars and killings. In fact they will plot with foreign governments for years to get their wars and killings.
Lesson: Don't start spouting history quotes without a good amount of history knowledge and fact checking. Now go kindly pound a bucket of sand up your ass!
Something falling into the category of fallacy does not automatically mean it's wrong.
Unfortunately, this claim is more than partially true. You only need to review median household income, numbers on government assistance, and full time employment numbers to make this proof.
Politicians (not limited to Obama) have been manipulating numbers for decades. The eligible pool of workers keeps shrinking as do unemployment numbers, yet our population is not shrinking. It does not take a high degree of intelligence to know this is a manipulation favoring the politicians so they can falsely claim unemployment is lower. It should also not take a high degree of intelligence to know that if you are lied to once, you should make sure you are not lied to twice by the same source.
You failing to check facts is at least as idiotic as calling someone else idiotic for not expressing the thought in the way you wanted it.
Which does not translate to the Government being responsible for creating jobs. It translates to not interfering with jobs and protecting the public from racketeers and similar criminals.
But again, I do agree that presidents generally have limited powers and cannot bring about large scale changes by themselves.
This is working as intended. for now at least....
You memorize a single strong password for a key storage program like Keepass, and only bother with 1 strong password being changed at your recommended frequency. I can change all of my other passwords randomly as often as I want and don't need to remember them all. I keep the encrypted DBs on a Thumb drive in my pocket, and a backup in a safe.
While not perfect this setup is safer due to the lack of a keylogger picking things up. No system is perfect so I go for "better" and "best practices". I would much rather have a 20+ character password for my DB I change every 9-12 months than try and remember dozens and dozens of various passwords I have for everything else.
Oh, I should add that I use multiple databases for multiple purposes. I don't mix business and pleasure.
Your Karma sucks so bad?
And do you truly believe he would have been both in the race, and receiving this much attention if certain people were not in political trouble? I can't change your belief if you do, just show you an alternative viewpoint to inspect.
The claim I have refuted is your original claim that it's cheaper for a person to have a Broadband connection than a land line. That was your whole point in making the false claim about a phone being only 10.00 a month if a Cable company provides the service.
So are you conceding your case and admitting you are both incorrect and ignorant? Or will you now claim that despite thread history you intended to argue all along that it was simply better for a person to have a computer. Generally speaking of course.
If you had not noticed by my comments, I had you pegged a while back. Meaning I won't hold my breath for that apology and admission.
Difference in opinion, not really a correction. I used to be of an opinion similar to yours, but decided that it was impossible that politicians were either wrong or unlucky 100% of the time. You may see the probability differently, which is fine.
Last try, because after this you are simply content with living in fantasy and refuse to see reality.
If you can not afford to eat, how do you afford to pay for the increase in electricity from a "free" computer? This is one of numerous concerns to a person in real poverty. This is what I was stating before, a thing you take for granted because you have never been in poverty.
Plus of course once you have the internet you have access to things like craigslist which are really useful when you are broke.
Ha ha, too funny. You are simply refusing to see poverty for what it is. That is called being delusional, grats on that one.
Slice it however you like, it's still a cake. More specifically, in either case the claim is incorrect. The Government already has the power to break up monopolies, and has already done so several times. The Sherman Act and Clayton Act ensured that the power was clearly defined.
Going a bit further, I am extremely Libertarian minded. One of the few powers I believe the Government should have it to protect the public from monopolies and predatory behaviors money can bring about. You won't get me to rally for Government action on most issues.
Your second paragraph would simply take too long to debate, but I completely disagree. In simple terms, the Press (Media) has a specific purpose which is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Monopolization prevents Media/Press from doing it's job and working _for_ the citizens.
This one may generate some good discussion, even though it's either misguided or incorrectly/confusingly stating issues. I don't agree that it's a "Troll" and will point out that a different opinion does not make it a troll. I do hope someone with Mod points corrects the rating.
Does Government want the monopolization? Absolutely, it's so much easier to control fewer media companies and this is about control.
Has deregulation caused the problems? Sure, but those go back quite a ways. The debates allowing mergers really started in the late 80s under Reagan. The deregulation happened under Clinton's first term. It took a long time to monopolize the media, but that should have been an obvious desire. Too much too soon and people would have worried and stopped the process. People in Government, contrary to popular myth, are actually quite intelligent and understand things like incremental change and rhetoric. They also happen to enjoy Sophistry and Rhetoric, which makes it a lose lose for society.
Massive roll backs? It was not a lot of deregulation. The regulation is the easy part to put in place. The hard part is all of the court rulings (I'll agree if you claimed it mostly Kangaroo) which allowed the deregulation before and after it occurred. Also the court rulings which allowed dishonesty in media (Florida Supreme Court vs. Fox) are going to be messy.
Non sequitur? This does not require more government. This requires action from the US Department of Justice which already exists for the exact purpose of protecting the public.
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media? I find that much more disturbing, and would ask that the people petition the government to break up the monopolies.
Have you looked at the links I've posted?
I would think that asking the question would have made it obvious that I did not follow the links, but I also believe you either completely misunderstand my position or are intentionally ignoring it. More on this as we go on...
Both comcast and centurytel have programs which allow qualified low income families with children to get 1.5Mbps broadband for ~$10/month.
Broadband != Phone service. You said I can get a phone for 10.00/month if I am in poverty. You just moved the goal post, but at least this was obvious.
It doesn't appear to be an introductory rate and I don't see any obvious requirements that you have cable tv or phone service from them. Comcast will even sell you a low cost computer and come to your house and set it up and show you the basics of using it.
Hang on a second, you seem to be equating poverty with lower income brackets. They are not the same thing at all. If I have trouble affording a phone for 20.00 a month what the hell gives you any idea that I can pay for a computer even at a discount? What makes you think I can afford the change in my electricity bill? What makes you think I have a TV, let alone a TV that can hook up to cable? Those are all rhetorical questions, because you really can't be that delusional.
Comcast charge a bunch more for phone service, but once you've got cable internet you can easily sign up for google voice, get a free local phone number and (with the purchase of a cheap headset) you can take phone calls and receive voicemail.
You implied my claims were incorrect about the cost and that your links would refute my claim, yet here we see plain as day that my claim was exactly correct. You still fail to understand, or simply ignore, reality. If a person can not afford a box of mac&cheese, how do they afford High Speed Internet? How can they afford phones, PCs, and TVs to use any of this stuff when they can't eat? Again, rhetorical questions because you still can't be that foolish.
These seem like programs that are absolutely targeted at the use case that the OP is describing. I'm asking you why, if you were eligible for a program like that, that you'd suggest getting a landline instead of cable/dsl?
Because these programs have requirements, which I have expressed several times. Cable/DSL is absolutely useless without an expensive device to use them. 10.00/month for a service which requires 200.00 in device costs every year or so (sooner if something breaks, gets stolen, etc..) is not 10.00/month. It is (200.00/duration + 10.00/month)/month. That is for the Broadband only, not the phone which you need to have for finding and maintaining jobs. That is another 10.00/month + device_cost/duration.
It is mathematically impossible for your 10.00/month broadband cost to be cheaper for a phone, than a standard phone.
I'm just saying, it's almost impossible not to be able to afford $10 per month. Just as an example...
I am just saying to live the life and then open your mouth about how easy or hard it is to get 10.00 every month for a service you don't need. Have you ever applied for food stamps, housing assistance, etc..? Have you ever applied to a charity? Have you ever missed meals for days because you could not afford food? Ever have a room mate, which you established to save money, steal all your stuff and leave you nothing?
Until you live the life, stop making BS claims about how things you take for granted are easy for other people. I gave you the assignment, go do the work.
I think we can both agree that wireless requires an expensive phone and expensive plan. Are you claiming that a Cable company land line is different than an AT&T land line? I don't see it that way, but I'll play along for the sake of argument. Comcast will give you Cable service for less than 10.00 a month for the phone (including the phone), or is that the bundled price with Internet and/or Cable TV? At least where I live, the latter is true and the former is false. Its also a 6 months at 19.99 or so, and not 19.99 for long durations of time.
I believe what is missing is that people take pretty much everything for granted, until they have to live without. If you are fiscally responsible and in poverty, life is extremely difficult. Let alone trying to dig yourself out of poverty. Odds are not in favor of someone getting out of poverty, but people do it all the time. Certainly not a majority of people.
If you are fine living in poverty and don't mind sitting in poverty for extended time (often a lifetime), there are programs which can help you.
I don't believe people like you are making light of the situation, I believe that people are grossly ignorant. The social experiment I gave above is really easy to replicate, but lets face facts. It's easier for people to maintain a delusion of "all those people deserve what they get" than do the work and say "Hey, this poverty thing sucks!".
Regardless of how current my situation was, you seem to be ignoring basic facts. A land line today costs less than 20.00 and includes phone(s). YMMV depending on your location and installer. Compared to the cheapest plan and cell phones today it's not even close, the land line is still cheaper. Oh I know, some turd company has a 9 year contract for the same price and gives you a phone. Any number of situations throws that on it's head, like the cheap ass phone they provide breaking or the company going out of business every 6 months and transferring you to a "new" company with a different contract.
Are you asking where/why/when I lived in poverty? Nope, I don't know you that well. I also won't tell you how I got out of poverty (too long for a /. post), just that it was not very easy to do.
To your "it's only 1-2 hours" I will tell you that while in poverty I worked 2 jobs, both full time. It paid for a small 1 bedroom apartment, insurance for my car (sure as hell was not new), renters insurance, gas to get to/from work, and my standard utilities (electricity, land line, water, gas). I had a bit left over for food most of the time but nothing for clothes and shoes. If not for gifting holidays I'd have been naked and unable to work. Many times I had to choose between eating and paying a bill, and there were at least a couple occasions I had to steal food. I could not drink and party even if someone else paid for it, I'd miss work and lose a job. I had no health insurance, because minimum wage jobs won't have any in the majority of cases.
Do the social experiment. Quit your job and give up everything you have including your college degrees and job experience (assuming you have them). This will give you enough on an application to land a minimum wage job. Try to live off that, or even 2 full time jobs paying minimum wage.
Assistance? If you can swallow your pride and apply to live off the government dime, you have to give up your job(s). This will keep you in a perpetual state of poverty, but sure, you can get assistance.
Your statement indicates that you have one of two possible beliefs. First, you may believe that 100% of poverty is caused by drugs, booze, and cigarettes? Alternatively, you may be attempting to claim that poverty pushes 100% of the population living that way into drugs, booze, and cigarettes.
Perhaps you meant to say something other than an absolutely false generalization and wish to apologize for being incorrect and induce dialogue on how poverty impacts everyone differently?
You can get 1.5 Mbps broadband from comcast or centurytel for $10/month.
https://apply.internetessentia... http://www.centurylink.com/hom...
The 10.00 per month is meaningless to a family who is in poverty. "It's only 10.00" sounds really good when you are not in poverty. I came from poverty so know what it's like not to be able to eat because I had a bill to pay.
Perhaps you are volunteering to pay some of those 10.00/month fees for families and I just misunderstand, but you can call me a skeptic.
There are only a few AC 130s in actively use and less than 50 were ever built. The air frame is a C 130 cargo plane, not a fighter class ship. The computer controls for the Gun systems is custom built, as are various cannons and cannon mounts. The platform for the 105 was custom built for each plane, as is the fire control and loader. Meaning that the AC 130 would not only cost more money than A10s to build in bulk, but lack all survive-ability on the battlefield. The AC 130 has no loiter time or capacity for damage, it's too slow for hit and run missions. This means it would not be able to perform as close air support.
You may as well claim that the U-2 should replace the F117, because that is the level of ignorance and stupidity you have shown (and you may actually think something so ridiculous). I have worked with AC 130s and A 10s in the field (US Army) so I know very well what both are capable of. Instead of repeating ignorance go do the goddamn homework so you have at least a chance of looking partially intelligent in a conversation.
I never said the F35 was a suitable replacement, so stop inventing words I never said. Go back and read it again! Prick!
This is not simply a product of automation. The Government pays companies to ship manual jobs overseas both directly and indirectly. We are producing less _and_ automation is taking away a percentage of the remaining menial jobs.
I really fail to grasp why people "guess" at answers they could easily find if they bothered to try.
My demeanor is not piss and vinegar, nor am I waking up on the wrong side of the bed, or anything else you wish to imagine. I simply refuse to coddle people who continue to believe delusional bullshit, and further refuse accept responsibility for their actions and words. My first response was cordial, but your defense of your irrational position and failure to take responsibility for your written words resulted in a harsher response.
Your request that I need to disprove your speculation of "they may have been under investigation" is so horribly illogical I can only counter with a metaphor. "T-Rex meat tasted like candy." Using your broken logic the only way you can counter my statement is to prove me wrong.
See how that works, or do you think it only counts if you make an invalid unsubstantiated claim?
Take note of your poor use of grammar if it was incorrect, apologize and learn from your mistake. You maintain a path of "nuh uh, I didn't mean what I wrote". The first is the mature method of handling the situation, the second is the infantile method you have engated thus far.