Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh? Funny. Rick Perry's religion says he should pray for you, love you as he loves himself, and treat you the way he wants to be treated. His "belief system also states that he needs to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the poor and NOT screw your wife.
Your belief system states that you should call people who see things differently than you do "douche-bags."
I like Rick's belief system better. Or, should say, Rick's belief system allows me to like HIM better.
It's not a matter of our gas prices being lower than elsewhere in the world, it's a matter of the profit being extorted from us to the oil companies.
Record profits for what, 6 years in a row or thereabouts? How do you foreigners oil price to profit ratio compare? Not to feed an OT thead, but...
The problem is supply and demand. The oil companies want to produce more supply, but environmentalists won't let them. They are trying to control your behavior via prices. To them, caribou in Alaska are more important that people in Ohio.
Want to solve the problem? Allow for domestic production (quick fix for pricing) and tax the profits to pay for renewable research (long term solution!)
(Before you mod me OT, you should make the parent OT first.)
if you're trying to use the debian port, know that Linux Mint being based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian is no longer close enough to use Debian's experimental branch packages. for an experimental beta like this, you would probably be better off either compiling from source [pain in the arse if you ask me] or installing the debian port on debian through a virtual machine of course any of the other OS/port combos would likely work too. Well, in my case, "Runs" can be measured in terms of degree. Sure, it launched and I was able to put a few widgets (or whatever) on my desktop. I could even launch an app or two before the whole thing fell apart. At one point, I was even able to drag my desktop wallpaper around the desktop as if it were a giant icon.
Do you really think someone in the media wouldn't be trying to break that juicy story if the whole economic downturn were in fact just a big conspiracy?
I bought into conspiracy theories when I was in high school; these days, I just don't have that kind of imagination on me. Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory. I know they are mostly BS, but I still love the thought process.
Here, USNews can put it better than I can:
Michael Darda of MKM Partners reels off a list of positive economic indicators:
1) The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose for the second consecutive month in April after a five month string of negative readings that lasted from October though February.
2) The economically-sensitive Dow Jones Transport Average hit new, all-time highs today on both an absolute and relative (to the DJIA) basis.
3) Emerging market stocks are up 24% since March 17 and at all-time highs relative to the S&P 500â"a signal that the developed economy slowdown isn't likely to take too large a toll on the emerging world.
4) Swap and paper bill spreads have collapsed, pointing to a thawing in credit markets (and faster growth down the road).
5) Finished goods and services prices (excluding energy) are rising faster than unit labor costs, a forward-looking indicator of profits. HERE is another one:
The invisible hand. Things going right tend to be much less visible to the average consumer than things going wrong. The low dollar has helped generate a surge in U.S. exports, for instance, which creates new American jobs and makes existing ones more stable. But companies cutting jobs tends to get a lot more attention than companies creating them. And even in towns where the local economy is strong, people often see the national headlines and figure their own good fortune won't last.
I don't agree with a damn thing you say and you'd be on my foes list if I kept one but I actually think that's a halfway decent idea. That's AWESOME! See, that's compromise works. If you and I, polar political opposites, can agree that this is a good idea, why can't our leaders in Washington? I understand that ANWR is a "national treasure" and all, but it's friggin BIG. I mean BIG as in bigger than most states kinda BIG. We would take up the space of a single airport to drill there. Saying that drilling in ANWR would destroy the whole region is like claiming that building an grocery store in Phoenix will destroy the Grand Canyon. And if Al Gore is correct, then all of ANWR is doomed due to global warming anyway if nothing is done. Is it not worth it to sacrifice such a small portion of it to save all of it? (And even sacrifice is unlikely since wildlife in Prudhoe Bay is actually doing better since we started drilling there. Prudhoe Bay is right next to ANWR and is along the migration path of the the same animals that would supposedly be threatened by drilling in ANWR, btw)
First, I'm going to ignore the fact that we get most of our oil from Latin and South America since you really proved the need for domestic energy production...
So we spend that money on alternative fuel research -- and then we do what when the military needs massive amounts of oil before those alternative fuels have pulled through?
Running a military takes a lot of oil -- not having enough oil to run its military operations elsewhere in Asia on account of a US embargo was a major factor in Japan's entry into WW2. What do we do if we end up in a military situation and the Middle East doesn't want to sell to us if we've already tapped our reserves? And what would we do now if the Mid-East cuts us off? Would drilling in ANWR and other domestic sites somehow make us MORE dependent on Mid-East oil? If our foreign suppliers cut us off, then the price of oil would go up, drastically. That means even MORE money for alternative research.
The only way for my plan to fail is if OPEC increased production and flooded the market to the point where it would be cheaper to buy from them than to pump it domestically. Fortunately, as you pointed out earlier, drilling in ANWR would only decrease the price by about $0.50/barrel, so drilling there wouldn't cause the price to drop and I don't know if OPEC could produce enough to cause the price to drop back down to $35/barrel.
The article title doesn't talk about a recession; it talks about a "poor economy". That we're in the midst of the latter situation is pretty much unchallenged. I responded to this last night, but it didn't take. Let's see what I remember.
First, a growing economy is good. A shrinking economy is bad. I almost find it sad that we have become so spoiled with the booming economy of the past several years that we consider growth to be "poor" simply because it is not what we have become accustomed to.
And yeah. It's challenged. I'm challenging it! Just because something is reported day in and day out doesn't make it true. The media loves a bad story. "If it bleeds, it leads." Right now, there is not a whole lot of bad news for the press to grab hold of lately, so they pounce on the economy. (That and their desire to see a party switch in Washington, but that's a different thread.) The constant drumbeat of the R-word (recession) has an effect on consumer confidence, even if it is simply not true. To prove the point, listening to the news last night on my drive home I heard, "Consumer confidence has reached a 16-year low. In other financial news, The Dow finished up today 60 points on a better than expected housing market and a stronger dollar leading to a drop in oil prices."
Do you think the economic stimulus package was passed just for fun? I don't think so, but I don't try to guess the motivations of politicians. I do know that they are pretty busy as it is an election year. Why do you think we need an economic stimulus package? Who knows? Did I mention that it is an election year? Hey! What are you doing in November? I don't make plans that far out, but I know that people will be voting because IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR!
Claiming that a politician supports rationing of resources on the basis that said politician has identified the level of public consumption of those resources as a problem is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst. Claiming that Democrats, beholden to Al Gore are allowing us to develop natural energy resources is either extraordinarily ignorant or a blatant lie. Fact is that Obama and other Democrats like gas prices high and want them even higher so that our habits will change and we'll use less energy.
Anyhow -- the rate of consumption that was part of "normal life" in the United States nine years ago wasn't sustainable either; it's just that most folks have avoided waking up to that until the situation has started to become acute. Right! And the rate that people were having babies vs. the rate at which we grow food was not sustainable either. Yet, here we are and not starving. Funny how the free market finds ways to take care of problems like that. That's how supply and demand works. It all goes to shit when politicians and bureaucrats jump in and start trying to fiddle with the knobs. Doing things like saying "X% of all fuel must come from corn" or "Drilling domestically is no longer allowed" would be fine examples of how things get fucked up with they are fucked with.
For proof, ask yourself, "How have the food and fuel prices been going since Congress starting fucking with it?"
You realize there's a big difference between saying we eat too much and drive too much to saying that it's acceptable to legislate food and fuel rationing in non-emergency situations... right?
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth. I guess it doesn't matter that the food and fuel shortages we now face are due to Democrat demands for putting food in our gas tanks and refusing to pull the fuel from the ground.
The only difference between a politician making something a problem and outlawing it is order of operation. First they talk, then they legislate. Obama is in the talking stage right now.
...the other one is just speaking the truth. Truth is constant. Why is it now "truth" and it was just normal life 9 years ago? Sorry, but part of being free is deciding what I do and how much I do it. To tell me I can't eat as much or drive as much is a limitation on my freedom by definition.
In a technical sense you're correct, of course.. but housing prices are down, "prime" mortgages are failing at unforseen rates, consumer confidence is in the hole and the dollar is weak, so putting your fingers in your ears and saying everything is fine and it's all just propaganda because we don't meet the technical definition for a recession isn't particularly helpful. So? Farmers, pharmaceuticals, oil companies and financial software firms are all doing well. Does that mean I'm supposed to think that the economy is experiencing explosive growth? I never said that all sectors of the economy are booming. Hell, ALL sectors are NEVER up at the same time. Regardless of all the problems you mentioned, the GDP is still up. That is the ONLY economic indicator that matters when answering the question, "Are we in a recession?"
By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore.
Do you realize how many barrels we go through in a day? Folks who did the math came to the conclusion that the difference in oil prices would be less than fifty cents a barrel. Oh! Then we should do nothing at all. How much do wind farms or solar cut down on the cost of KW/h? How much does using a lower power processor help cut down a company's electric bill? I bet all those people feel stupid now for trying something that doesn't solve 100% of the problem.
By the way, would you mind writing a check for $135,000,000,000 to an alternative energy research company. You seemed to have missed that from my previous post.
(I kid but in 2001 the company I used to work for stopped providing hand soap in the bathrooms after the stock tanked...)
You think that toilet paper thing was a joke? I worked for a company in 1998 that had a rocker on the toilet paper dispenser that allowed for one square to be dispensed at a time.
Just how many bad numbers do you need to see?????? If we are talking about recession, one, the GDP. A recession is a shrinking of the GDP for two consecutive quarters. So far, we've have 0, as in ZERO consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage.
So I don't give a shit what you, the press or anyone else says to try to make things look bad to bring down whatever politician (Bush or a Democrat congress) you are aiming at because numbers don't lie!
However, the tree-hugger argument is not that this piece of land is so much better than any other, but rather it is one of the LAST really protected places on the planet, and that has a value.
-A Fine, we'll leave the other 99.999999999999999% of it alone. After all, ANWR is about the size of North Carolina. We only want about the size of Dulles Airport to drill on. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
I understand your point about leaving it there as an savings type of investment, but I have a better idea. Drill it! It would cost about $30/barrel to extract the oil that sells for about $135 today. Remember, that's a billion barrels, or $135,000,000,000 profit. Take that "profit" and dump it into research towards alternative energy. By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore. Or, if $135,000,000,000 in research can't find an acceptable renewable, then it can't be found!
I'm curious if that idea would be acceptable to either candidate.
Unfortunately there's not a dime's difference between the candidates there. McCain ALSO opposes drilling in ANWR. He even went as far as comparing it to drilling in the Grand Canyon, i.e., a national treasure. Very true. However, I feel that we stand a better chance with McCain changing his mind on that one. Either way, when it comes to drilling anywhere else, you can bet that McCain will be more open to the idea than Obama, who has already said we eat and drive too much for other countries to approve.
it's obviously still a pretty big deal for a lot of Americans.
And it remains to be seen whether or not those Americans can actually swing the election.
I for one refuse to base my vote off of the fear of what racists might do. That Hillary is reduced to using this piece of FUD to make her case says volumes about how far she has fallen.
So, if I don't vote for Obama, I'm a racist? I guarantee that will be the cry if he loses.
I'm pretty sure pro civil-liberties and Obama went opposite directions when he started talking about mandating what temperature I keep my house, how much food I can eat, or how much gas I can buy. and there is the difference between parties. Democrats think it is OK to do such things, as it helps the greater good in reference to GW and equal access to resources (Communism).
Republicans think it's OK to do things like tap phone calls in order to preserve national security, which is also the greater good.
I see the difference this way. I don't know when/if the NSA is listening to my calls so it makes absolutely 0% difference in my life. I DO KNOW when someone takes food off of my family's table, tells me what kind of car I can drive or I have to spend my child's college fund to fill up my car because someone thinks (incorrectly, I might add) that a fuckin' caribou might be badly affected if we do the same thing in ANWR that we do in every state in the union, including about 7 miles away in Prudhoe Bay.
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
No, like I said, people steal for all kinds of stuff, including food. That doesn't mean that anything that is stolen for should be outlawed. If that were the case, EVERYTHING would be outlawed. People steal for food, boats, cars, gas, money, their kids... people steal for all kinds of reasons!
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
You brought up bike helmets and the other examples.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different.
How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
I agree that we have gotten off topic a bit, but there are similarities between smoking laws and... well, let's call them anti-gluttony proposals. This is where I hop off the environmental bandwagon. The base here is that people want to control what other people do. They use excuses like, "for the common good", "it's for your own good", "think of the children" and "to save mankind/environment/seals/whatever". This type of argument is abused over and over again and literally can lead to tyranny. China putting down the Tienanmen Square protests was for the common good, at the cost of personal liberty. The problem is that people see "for the common good" as more important than liberty. I think that personal liberty itself is "for the common good". When you start saying that one person can not use more resources than another person, you enter the realm of Communism, where we all have the same thing. This is the exact opposite of personal liberty and freedom.
A single smoker can create an environment that is inhospitable to many non-smokers by partaking in an environment populated with non-smokers. Further, they place outsized strain on the health care system with largely preventable illnesses brought on by the use of cigarettes that boils down to an individual choice to smoke.
The inhospitable environment argument can be used for people that talk to loud. I find it annoying, but that's tough for me. I have to let other people do as they wish so that I can do as I wish. I am free to move to an environment that more hospitable to me. If not, then I have to deal with it. I agree that smoking is different, but considerations have been in place for years. Now they have gotten to the point of ridiculousness with people being told they can's smoke in their own homes, car or on their balcony or someone may smell it and get upset. As for the strain on the health care system, that argument can be abused in other sectors, such as the topic at hand, obesity. People who don't exercise are a strain on the system. Are we to have federally mandated exercise programs with fines for those that do not pass their required weigh-ins? Single mothers having children are a strain on the system. Are we going to outlaw sex out of wedlock? Why not? They are a strain on the system!
This has nothing to do with Bikes, Child Safety, Gun Laws, and is only partially c
Last I checked... Tivo supports the broadcast flag as well, yet those of us (I have 2) with Tivo's had no issues... So I guess the question is, why is Tivo ignoring the broadcast flag (not that I am complaining mind you, I hate the broadcast flag), but I am curious.. I don't know if my Time-Warner provided box blocked it or not. Still, I'm surprised this got noticed at all; Does anyone watch these shows?
You must not havenotbeenlooking.
Uh, I haven't seen any smokers robbing a liquor store to get their next fix. OK, fine. If you look hard enough you can find someone stealing for any reason. People steal for food. Does that mean food should be outlawed? I think the point is that how often a crack-head or heroin addict has to drop to such levels.
-modern society is forced to regulate the unintelligent, inconsiderate and unhealthy in cases where people are not willing to regulate themselves. Many laws exist to regulate public behavior, especially when this behavior affects the health or pocketbooks of others. Bike helmets, seatbelts, child safety seats, gun laws, public shagging (sad, but true), public drinking...all these laws are there for a reason: to manage the stupid, selfish, 'I am an island' behavior of self-destructive impulse-driven dickheads. Bike helmets are a joke, IMHO, but they do not specify where and how bike riders ride. Same for seatbelts. On that same line, many states are rejected helmet laws for motorcycle riders in the name of liberty, which is what we are really talking about here.
Child safety seats are a different matter. While I grew up before such things and rode around standing up in the front seat of my parents' cars, children are not able to make such decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, many parents are not mature enough to make that decision for them. Still, car seats do not limit a drivers ability to drive in any way, shape or form.
Gun laws have caused more harm than good. "...only criminals will own guns." You don't have to look past the campus of Virginia Tech for an example of that failure.
"Public shagging", or more to the point, public decency laws are a throwback from a more puritan time. Still, they do have their place as no one wants to see people walk around with their dork hanging out. Although no one seems to mind at gay pride parades where there are no arrests for such behavior and no one is hurt. I don't think it would bother me to see these laws relaxed quite a bit as it might make my day to see the ladies around the office go topless during their breaks on warm summer days.
Public intoxication is probably your best example. However, people are allowed to drink pretty much where and when they want as long as they don't get out of control or drive. That's when the authorities step in. A drunk is a direct danger to those around him, especially behind the wheel. You can't say the same for a smoker, which is where this example falls apart.
The whole point is that smoking is a legal activity. The problem is that some people want to tell other people how, when, where and if they partake in that legal activity. That by it's very definition is an infringement upon liberty. I'm sorry if you don't like smoking, but living in a free society means that people get to do things that you don't like.
-imposing smoke on a non-smoker is not a reversible argument; you may like coming home in the same smell category as a cat's asshole, a furry tongue, loss of taste and smell, and an ever-shortening life span, but I don't. So the gov't should mandate what I smell like?
-smokers do place a much higher burden on public health costs (in countries modern enough to have them;) that non-smokers have to absorb. (sure, same argument for alcoholics and fatties, but arguing that is just a diversion from the point) The the gov't should mandate that only healthy food be eaten? Better yet, let's pass laws that state you MUST perform a physical fitness regiment. Otherwise, you are putting a burden on the health care system that us exercisers have to absorb.
-modern cigs are nothing more than a highly cultivated and refined designer drug that smokers are *addicted* to; the only difference between cigarettes and heroine or cocaine is that it is a legal drug that it is socially acceptable to be addicted to Uh, I haven't seen any smokers robbing a liquor store to get their next fix.
-modern society is forced to regulate the unintelligent, inconsiderate and unhealthy in cases where people are not willing to regulate themselves. Many laws exist to regulate public behavior, especially when this behavior affects the health or pocketbooks of others. Bike helmets, seatbelts, child safety seats, gun laws, public shagging (sad, but true), public drinking...all these laws are there for a reason: to manage the stupid, selfish, 'I am an island' behavior of self-destructive impulse-driven dickheads. So I should give up rights for the societal good? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I remember! How about you give up your freedom from search and seizure and let the gov't listen in on your phone calls. It is, after all for the common good, right? That is the test you are applying here. "If it's for the common good, then one man's rights don't matter." That is what you are saying.
There are many more valid arguments for smokers to avoid, but what it comes down to is that smoking is a vile, unhealthy habit that the addicts have no qualms about inflicting upon others. So? My habits are none of your fucking business.
Guys begging on the street for quarters so they can get their next crack fix are less offensive than riding in an elevator with stinky and his phlegmy cough...never mind having to walk through his cloud of toxic shit whenever I walk out of a building. While you are free to have your opinion, that doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do. I think non-smokers like yourself are a bunch of whiny bitches. That does not give me the right to tell you what to do.
Stop avoiding the arguments. Comparing smoking to segregation laws or telling non-smokers 'suck on it...I have rights to' proves just how asinine and weak your logic is. So, you are saying that I have no rights? Are you saying that my rights don't matter? What are you trying to say here? I want you to come out and say that I am less human and have less rights than a "full" human. That is how you feel. If not, then I must have misread you post because you certainly imply that your rights are more important than mine.
Slashdot Mirror
Your belief system states that you should call people who see things differently than you do "douche-bags."
I like Rick's belief system better. Or, should say, Rick's belief system allows me to like HIM better.
Record profits for what, 6 years in a row or thereabouts? How do you foreigners oil price to profit ratio compare? Not to feed an OT thead, but...
The problem is supply and demand. The oil companies want to produce more supply, but environmentalists won't let them. They are trying to control your behavior via prices. To them, caribou in Alaska are more important that people in Ohio.
Want to solve the problem? Allow for domestic production (quick fix for pricing) and tax the profits to pay for renewable research (long term solution!)
(Before you mod me OT, you should make the parent OT first.)
I am using the what appears to be Kubuntu repo's btw:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/kubuntu-members-kde4/ubuntu/
(and I could be wrong, but I believe the proper term is GUI or WM.
Nope! Looks like I really am wrong. You are correct, sir!)
No. Must be the CLI.
I bought into conspiracy theories when I was in high school; these days, I just don't have that kind of imagination on me. Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory. I know they are mostly BS, but I still love the thought process.
Here, USNews can put it better than I can: Michael Darda of MKM Partners reels off a list of positive economic indicators:
1) The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose for the second consecutive month in April after a five month string of negative readings that lasted from October though February.
2) The economically-sensitive Dow Jones Transport Average hit new, all-time highs today on both an absolute and relative (to the DJIA) basis.
3) Emerging market stocks are up 24% since March 17 and at all-time highs relative to the S&P 500â"a signal that the developed economy slowdown isn't likely to take too large a toll on the emerging world.
4) Swap and paper bill spreads have collapsed, pointing to a thawing in credit markets (and faster growth down the road).
5) Finished goods and services prices (excluding energy) are rising faster than unit labor costs, a forward-looking indicator of profits. HERE is another one: The invisible hand. Things going right tend to be much less visible to the average consumer than things going wrong. The low dollar has helped generate a surge in U.S. exports, for instance, which creates new American jobs and makes existing ones more stable. But companies cutting jobs tends to get a lot more attention than companies creating them. And even in towns where the local economy is strong, people often see the national headlines and figure their own good fortune won't last.
--Q I'm Polish, you insensitive clod!
Running a military takes a lot of oil -- not having enough oil to run its military operations elsewhere in Asia on account of a US embargo was a major factor in Japan's entry into WW2. What do we do if we end up in a military situation and the Middle East doesn't want to sell to us if we've already tapped our reserves? And what would we do now if the Mid-East cuts us off? Would drilling in ANWR and other domestic sites somehow make us MORE dependent on Mid-East oil? If our foreign suppliers cut us off, then the price of oil would go up, drastically. That means even MORE money for alternative research.
The only way for my plan to fail is if OPEC increased production and flooded the market to the point where it would be cheaper to buy from them than to pump it domestically. Fortunately, as you pointed out earlier, drilling in ANWR would only decrease the price by about $0.50/barrel, so drilling there wouldn't cause the price to drop and I don't know if OPEC could produce enough to cause the price to drop back down to $35/barrel.
First, a growing economy is good. A shrinking economy is bad. I almost find it sad that we have become so spoiled with the booming economy of the past several years that we consider growth to be "poor" simply because it is not what we have become accustomed to.
And yeah. It's challenged. I'm challenging it! Just because something is reported day in and day out doesn't make it true. The media loves a bad story. "If it bleeds, it leads." Right now, there is not a whole lot of bad news for the press to grab hold of lately, so they pounce on the economy. (That and their desire to see a party switch in Washington, but that's a different thread.) The constant drumbeat of the R-word (recession) has an effect on consumer confidence, even if it is simply not true. To prove the point, listening to the news last night on my drive home I heard, "Consumer confidence has reached a 16-year low. In other financial news, The Dow finished up today 60 points on a better than expected housing market and a stronger dollar leading to a drop in oil prices." Do you think the economic stimulus package was passed just for fun? I don't think so, but I don't try to guess the motivations of politicians. I do know that they are pretty busy as it is an election year. Why do you think we need an economic stimulus package? Who knows? Did I mention that it is an election year? Hey! What are you doing in November? I don't make plans that far out, but I know that people will be voting because IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR!
For proof, ask yourself, "How have the food and fuel prices been going since Congress starting fucking with it?"
See my point?
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth. I guess it doesn't matter that the food and fuel shortages we now face are due to Democrat demands for putting food in our gas tanks and refusing to pull the fuel from the ground.
The only difference between a politician making something a problem and outlawing it is order of operation. First they talk, then they legislate. Obama is in the talking stage right now.
...the other one is just speaking the truth. Truth is constant. Why is it now "truth" and it was just normal life 9 years ago? Sorry, but part of being free is deciding what I do and how much I do it. To tell me I can't eat as much or drive as much is a limitation on my freedom by definition.I never said that all sectors of the economy are booming. Hell, ALL sectors are NEVER up at the same time. Regardless of all the problems you mentioned, the GDP is still up. That is the ONLY economic indicator that matters when answering the question, "Are we in a recession?"
By the way, would you mind writing a check for $135,000,000,000 to an alternative energy research company. You seemed to have missed that from my previous post.
I hope that doesn't include toilet paper.
You think that toilet paper thing was a joke?(I kid but in 2001 the company I used to work for stopped providing hand soap in the bathrooms after the stock tanked...)
I worked for a company in 1998 that had a rocker on the toilet paper dispenser that allowed for one square to be dispensed at a time.
So I don't give a shit what you, the press or anyone else says to try to make things look bad to bring down whatever politician (Bush or a Democrat congress) you are aiming at because numbers don't lie!
-A Fine, we'll leave the other 99.999999999999999% of it alone. After all, ANWR is about the size of North Carolina. We only want about the size of Dulles Airport to drill on. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
I understand your point about leaving it there as an savings type of investment, but I have a better idea. Drill it! It would cost about $30/barrel to extract the oil that sells for about $135 today. Remember, that's a billion barrels, or $135,000,000,000 profit. Take that "profit" and dump it into research towards alternative energy. By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore. Or, if $135,000,000,000 in research can't find an acceptable renewable, then it can't be found!
I'm curious if that idea would be acceptable to either candidate.
And it remains to be seen whether or not those Americans can actually swing the election.
I for one refuse to base my vote off of the fear of what racists might do. That Hillary is reduced to using this piece of FUD to make her case says volumes about how far she has fallen.
So, if I don't vote for Obama, I'm a racist? I guarantee that will be the cry if he loses.Republicans think it's OK to do things like tap phone calls in order to preserve national security, which is also the greater good.
I see the difference this way. I don't know when/if the NSA is listening to my calls so it makes absolutely 0% difference in my life. I DO KNOW when someone takes food off of my family's table, tells me what kind of car I can drive or I have to spend my child's college fund to fill up my car because someone thinks (incorrectly, I might add) that a fuckin' caribou might be badly affected if we do the same thing in ANWR that we do in every state in the union, including about 7 miles away in Prudhoe Bay.
Guess how I'm voting?
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
No, like I said, people steal for all kinds of stuff, including food. That doesn't mean that anything that is stolen for should be outlawed. If that were the case, EVERYTHING would be outlawed. People steal for food, boats, cars, gas, money, their kids... people steal for all kinds of reasons!
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
You brought up bike helmets and the other examples.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different.
How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
I agree that we have gotten off topic a bit, but there are similarities between smoking laws and... well, let's call them anti-gluttony proposals. This is where I hop off the environmental bandwagon. The base here is that people want to control what other people do. They use excuses like, "for the common good", "it's for your own good", "think of the children" and "to save mankind/environment/seals/whatever". This type of argument is abused over and over again and literally can lead to tyranny. China putting down the Tienanmen Square protests was for the common good, at the cost of personal liberty. The problem is that people see "for the common good" as more important than liberty. I think that personal liberty itself is "for the common good". When you start saying that one person can not use more resources than another person, you enter the realm of Communism, where we all have the same thing. This is the exact opposite of personal liberty and freedom.
A single smoker can create an environment that is inhospitable to many non-smokers by partaking in an environment populated with non-smokers. Further, they place outsized strain on the health care system with largely preventable illnesses brought on by the use of cigarettes that boils down to an individual choice to smoke.
The inhospitable environment argument can be used for people that talk to loud. I find it annoying, but that's tough for me. I have to let other people do as they wish so that I can do as I wish. I am free to move to an environment that more hospitable to me. If not, then I have to deal with it.
I agree that smoking is different, but considerations have been in place for years. Now they have gotten to the point of ridiculousness with people being told they can's smoke in their own homes, car or on their balcony or someone may smell it and get upset.
As for the strain on the health care system, that argument can be abused in other sectors, such as the topic at hand, obesity. People who don't exercise are a strain on the system. Are we to have federally mandated exercise programs with fines for those that do not pass their required weigh-ins? Single mothers having children are a strain on the system. Are we going to outlaw sex out of wedlock? Why not? They are a strain on the system!
This has nothing to do with Bikes, Child Safety, Gun Laws, and is only partially c
Child safety seats are a different matter. While I grew up before such things and rode around standing up in the front seat of my parents' cars, children are not able to make such decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, many parents are not mature enough to make that decision for them. Still, car seats do not limit a drivers ability to drive in any way, shape or form.
Gun laws have caused more harm than good. "...only criminals will own guns." You don't have to look past the campus of Virginia Tech for an example of that failure.
"Public shagging", or more to the point, public decency laws are a throwback from a more puritan time. Still, they do have their place as no one wants to see people walk around with their dork hanging out. Although no one seems to mind at gay pride parades where there are no arrests for such behavior and no one is hurt. I don't think it would bother me to see these laws relaxed quite a bit as it might make my day to see the ladies around the office go topless during their breaks on warm summer days.
Public intoxication is probably your best example. However, people are allowed to drink pretty much where and when they want as long as they don't get out of control or drive. That's when the authorities step in. A drunk is a direct danger to those around him, especially behind the wheel. You can't say the same for a smoker, which is where this example falls apart.
The whole point is that smoking is a legal activity. The problem is that some people want to tell other people how, when, where and if they partake in that legal activity. That by it's very definition is an infringement upon liberty. I'm sorry if you don't like smoking, but living in a free society means that people get to do things that you don't like.