So how would you feel if we would invade your country and brought some of our European Freedom?
Freedom was also never the reason. Money (in this case oil) is the reason and freedom is the marketing part.
If freedom would be the real reason, you would have freedom at home as well. You haven't. Companies have freedom, but you don't.
Well, let's see: Obama is a butthead! Mohammed is a child molester. Moses was a traitor to the Pharaohs that cared for him! Jesus liked wine and traveled with a bunch of guys he repeatedly claimed to love wearing in robes with no visible means of income! Buddha was FAT! Confucius smoked opium! I think I will/will not go to church this weekend. I might even protest while I'm there.
Yep! Still got my freedoms. No one is knocking at the door. My wife and kids are not being tortured. I'm not being dragged to the desert to add to some mass grave.
Seems like a pretty hypocritical message, considering all the civilians we've killed over there. In a place where we shouldn't even have military.
The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident. They usually die because a weapon malfunctioned or they were too close to a government building. We also tend to apologize for it and in many cases, notify the civilian population before an attack occurs.. In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.
Of course, you may disagree with this, but if an Iraqi were to disagree with his government in 2001, they would die. They are free to disagree today. What makes you so special that you deserve freedoms like this and others don't? I served, by the way, not to give you freedoms. You already have them. I served, knowing full well that when I signed, I would be giving those that have not rights the very freedoms that you and I have.
When Al Qaeda kills civilians, the civilians are the target. There is no warning before hand and no apology afterwards. The goal of Al Qaeda is not to free the population, but to convert or enslave them. If you are a Christian, Al Qaeda wants to you convert or die. If you are an atheist, Al Qaeda wants you to convert or die. If you are a Jew, Al Qaeda wants you to die.
You're right. A whole bunch of pork-barrel Republicans also see this as negative. I remember the sarcastic comments Republican congressmen made last test flight when they said, "congratulations to Space-X for doing what NASA did 50 years ago." Such ironic comments given Republicans' supposed private enterprise leanings, but easy to understand when you realize that NASA funding traditionally hasn't been about exciting science so much as a means of funneling large amounts of corporate welfare back into the home states of congressmen.
It was Obama who cancelled the Constellation program and a Democrat led congress that cut NASA's budget. What do Republicans have to do with this?
Hate to respond to a political troll, but I'm tired of seeing Democrats do stupid stuff like this and then turn around and blame Republicans for it.
Why do we need all these fucking gestures and shit? I guess most people still haven't figured out how to TYPE.
It's a workout trying to get connect to recognize what I'm doing, but even if it were more accurate, I still have to hold my arms out to simply find out where the "pointer" is.
A mouse is still a better pointing device. A flick of the wrist is much more efficient in all ways than a wave of the arm.
If dad want to monitor his kids, the best way to do that is to ask them. That is, what a father supposed to do. Sneaking for "bad stuff" means there's no confidence in the children. In that case, the family is already in-secure no matter what are you doing with the network. Don't try to sell family problems as a reason for monitoring. It just doesn't figure.
Yeah, because children NEVER lie to their parents. We are all live in a "Leave it Beaver" world.
I find it sad that whenever a "video game rating" or a "require ID to purchase violent games" article comes up, I see post after post about how it's the parent's responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing. Now here is someone who wants to monitor what his kids are doing electronically, and he's hammered for it. Again, you don't have to like it, but it's a parent's job to know what goes on his/her house, network included.
Yes, I agree that he is going about it the wrong way. It is extremely impractical to capture every single packet for later analysis. If the kids watch a few Netflix videos a month and play a few games of WOW, your packet storage device is full in no time of nothing but the kind of crap you are not looking for. I think a much more sensible solution would be to put the computers in public spaces and set a schedule for when different machines are allowed to be online.
Exactly. Either the "friend" is actually an oppressive government or a guy with some serious problems. Tell him it's not possible. Even if it's possible, it's a bad idea, possibly illegal. Then go take an Ethics class.
Or maybe it's a father who wants to monitor what his kids are doing. You might disagree with that, but as long as he's not beating his kids, how he raises his family is none of your business.
This guy wants to secure his home network. A secure network is a good thing. I'm sure you'll say that this is monitoring, not security. Well, how do you know if you've properly secured your network without monitoring it?
High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.
Taxes on gasoline are $0.31/gallon. Taxes on diesel are $0.30.
However, there may be other taxes that I'm not aware of that are levied before the fuel reaches the pump.
Disregard. From Wikipedia's page on fuel tax:
Fuel taxes in the United States vary by state. The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (4.86/L) and 24.4 cents per gallon (6.45/L) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents per gallon for gas (13.07/L) and 54.6 cents per gallon for diesel (14.42/L).
The most rabid right-wingers seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. Pay attention to the part that says "for one". It implies that there are others, just like it, but that aren't mentioned. Once you demonstrate that you have the physical capability to understand what someone is saying, we will move to actually discussing whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.
Relax, bud. I agree with nearly everything you said. Maybe not the "shithole" part. With the amount of money that this guy is going to make, very few places will be a shithole for him.
I was merely pointing out that this is more about class envy than paying government bills. I keep hearing "RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!" even after it's been proven to those screaming that it won't make a dent in our budget, much less the deficit.
Good idea or bad idea? I'm afraid I'd have to go with bad. Like you said, if he doesn't want to be here, good riddance. I wish him well.
That said, I'm pretty sure this isn't going anywhere. Republicans, for one, will oppose it just because it comes from Democrats.
Or maybe the fact that it will cost more money to get this law written, debated, passed and enforced than we would see from it. Or is this more about envy because someone is making more money and not paying taxes on it?
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. This comment comes up on every story dealing with mortality risk, and it's getting kind of old. Look, the hazard rate function is not that hard to understand. Educate yourself instead of making the same worn-out joke over and over again, okay?
Funny you should mention Jesus Christ. I wonder how much coffee that guy drank!
*offtopic* According to the link in your sig, the government is shrinking. Wonder were that extra $1.5 trillion is going. */offtopic*
so this $43,675,900,000 per year doesn't cover the cost of the wars.
So now we are talking about the wars? First, the fact that we have not stolen Iraq's oil is proof that neither Iraq war was not a war for oil. Go there, spend a bit of time with the people there, visit the mass grave sites and speak with a few of the people who were literally tortured themselves or had their family members tortured. The only role oil played was that it would fund Hussein's activities. But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the wars in the middle east any more than I am here to debate Operation Just Cause.
The OP stated the oil industry is heavily subsidized to pay for our peace keeping efforts in the middle east. I proved that gasoline taxes alone cover the cost. I didn't include the costs the oil companies pay to lease land, taxes private landowners pay, taxes the oil companies pay themselves, or the taxes paid by those in the oil industry. Then someone moved the goal posts and said that the taxes are needed to pay for roads and threw in an insult for good measure. That's a sure sign someone is frustrated they have been proven wrong. I pointed out that roads are the responsibility of the states, with the exception of interstates. Local roads are local responsibility and they should be paid for by the states. The fact that the feds subsidize state road projects is not the point. That's pork paid for out of the general fund and is not what we are discussing here.
This is where you also commit the "Move the goal posts" fallacy. You said:
You're application of the numbers is laughable ignorant. I also like how you try to twist his argument from paying for war, to patrolling.
and
You do know we have spent over 1.3Trillion dollar in about 10 years, right?
First, I was responding to "massive military presence and operations in the Middle East." That costs about $50 billion a year. You called it "... normal peace time operations, as in keep a fleet there." No one mentioned the wars until you got here. Next, my numbers are spot on. If you have a problem with them, I refer you to my link.
The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of
The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts. The $0.31 does not get sent to the DOD. If you want to double the tax and use that to pay for the Middle East adventures, I fully support that.
My roads are funded through my state. That means the additional state levied gasoline taxes are used to pay for roads along with my registration, property and sales taxes. The only roads the federal government are responsible for are interstates, and even then the states pay for part of that.
No taxes get sent straight to the DOD. Unfortunately, they all go into a giant pot that everyone raids. My point was that the gasoline taxes that are paid into the system are greater than what is taken out to patrol the mid east waters. The rest goes into the pot and I'm sure some of that is used to pay for interstates.
And my nuts have feeling, although that should be none of your concern.
Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.
Because your ability to carpool your kids to school is more important than the lives of innocent Iraqis, gotcha.
I served and spent time in the middle east. I think you have been about our purpose for being there. Our job was not to kill innocent brown people, but to protect them. You didn't seem to care about the mass graves filled with men, and others filled with women, still holding their toddler children. These are the innocent Iraqis and I'm amazed at how much you don't care about them. You seem more concerned about the people we were sent there to kill; the people who filled these mass graves or allowed it to happen.
And I send my kids to private school so they don't get the same brainwashing indoctrination that people like you got from our public school system.
For starters, not all of our interests in the Middle East are oil based. For example, Bahrain has no oil. Bahrain exports things like aluminum. The US Navy's 5th Fleet is also based there. That fleet costs the US taxpayer 10s of billions of dollars. The US Navy 5th Fleet is that massive naval force you allude to that protects our interests in the Middle East. Note the cost; 10's of billions of dollars.
The US uses roughly 386,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day. At a tax of $0.31/gallon, that is $119,660,000 in tax revenue. Multiply that by 365 days a year and the US receives $43,675,900,000 per year from gasoline taxes. The US also uses about 60 billion gallons of diesel each year which calculate to roughly $18 billion in tax revenue per year ($0.30/gallon). So the US receives about $62 billion per year from gasoline taxes alone, which is plenty to fund the 5th Fleet, especially when you consider the taxes paid when cars are sold, various taxes paid by the companies that make cars and components. And, of course, all those "leases" you hear about where "big oil" wants to drill on government land are not free. The government gets a percentage per barrel. Now, granted, the domestic oil production is not in the Middle East, but like you said, "The middle east has to be controlled to keep world market prices stable".
So, yeah! The cost of patrolling the waters of the Mid East is more than covered by our gasoline and diesel taxes alone. Also note that oil is not the only interest we have in the region. It's a big one, sure, but not the only one.
Don't like my numbers? THIS site says the following:
The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of gasoline we purchase.
But you say:
That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.
Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant.
Moose are not found in those areas as pipe lines are not normally built over the swamps and in the forests they prefer.
It appears they "prefer" the pipelines.
Again we see your ignorance. Those refuges only hold enough oil for months of US use. They should be kept until we actually need them.
Well, for starters, we won't extract and refine it all at once. And to be fair, I'm fully aware of the impact drilling will have on prices. If I had it my way, we'd tax it as a condition of permission to drill there and use the money to invest in renewables. For example, a $10/barrel tax times the billions of barrels in ANWR alone would be more than enough to not just fund, but INCREASE the amount of money funding our fusion research.
The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.
Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.
I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it. If not, consider that every single product I buy is transported to the store I bought is also using fuel, which is taxed, which I pay indirectly. Of course, all those products are made from parts, pieces and ingredients that had to be shipped to whoever made that product, which I also paid the tax for. Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.
Although, it would be better if we could produce our own energy. Then we could tell those in the Middle East to pound sand and let the fund their own militaries. But then you have to find a way around the people protesting that producing our own energy might cause moose to stop fucking. Not that any of these people have ever seen a moose or have bothered to travel to places they have convinced themselves will be completely destroyed. Nor have they bothered to simply do the math and realize that some of these refuges are larger than most states and producing energy from these places would have the environmental impact of building a library in Wisconsin. Of course, they also refuse to consider that environmental impact from our heavily monitored and regulated drilling practices at home are much less than the impact from places that ruled by a prince or king or self appointed leader for life.
No. What these people want is for us to live like farmers from the 1700's, only without wood burning or producing livestock. They want us to grow our own food to share with the bugs and rodents that will decimate our crops and lead us to the brink of starvation. Of course, I need to stress that THEY want US to live that way. They will continue to live in their climate controlled apartments and drive their cars to and fro because they recycle the vitamin water bottles they drink, so they are OK. Is us that is the problem. Not them./rant
Having been picked on at the start, Apple has become one of the biggest bullies on the block. It's as if the Ugly Duckling rather than go swanning (heh) around saying "Look how pretty I am" decided "Right, now I'm 4x the size of those bastards who picked on me. Time for some payback" and went on a revenge spree.
This is one of those very rare times were I want to see some hacker group take Apple down. Certainly some "Anonymous" guy was looking forward to his new OneX.
As I understand it, missing NEON is the rough counterpart of missing SSE. AMD's Athlon CPUs support x86, but after Intel introduced SSE instructions in the Pentium III, the next couple versions of Athlon supported AMD's own competing 3DNow instructions instead of SSE.
True, but if I recall, applications still ran fine if SSE and/or 3DNow were not detected.
The country is in the hole due to four distinctly Republican policies. Namely, two unpaid for (and unnecessary wars), two mammoth tax cuts for multi-millionaires and a medicare giveaway (at least Obama's health care plan attempts to pay for itself). I don't think anyone with a brain larger than a walnut thinks Gore would have gone down any of those utterly disastrous paths. Now people are screaming for Bush II. Amazing...as always.
If what you say were true, the average deficit under Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress he had for the first six years of his term, would have been more than $250 billion. Instead, it was around $250 billion. Obama's average deficit is around $1250 billion. So it's not the wars. It's not the tax cuts. You are full of shit.
Yes, you are correct. Republicans are in a position to obstruct. But the GP said "So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?"
Um... no. First, the economy was bad before the Repubs retook control the House. Next, it hasn't gotten worse since they took the House. So, no. They are not responsible for the weak economy.
As for controlling the Senate, it is true that you pretty much need 2/3 control to get absolutely anything passed. However, Obama had this for the first two years of his term. That's how his health care bill got passed. For two years, Obama literally had everything he wanted and there was nothing Republicans could do to stop him. So, blaming Republicans is a lie.
I bet you cant wait to join your friends and blame Obama.
Um... Please allow me to quote myself from a the very comment you responded to:
And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress.
So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?
Wow! I don't believe I have to explain this. But, here we go:
Congress is made up of two houses: The House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members are supposed to be closer to their constituents and all of them are elected every two years. The Senate holds elections every two years, but each term is six years with 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years. Of course, as you know, the President is elected every four years for a max of two terms.
Now, Republicans held the House of Representatives from 1995 until 2007. The Senate was more or less under Republican control through most of the Bush years, but during this time, Senators had a habit of switching sides to get what they wanted. This would either tilt control over the Dems or force a balanced Senate. However, in 2007, both houses of Congress, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate both fell under the control of Democrats. This continued through the final two years of Bush AND THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA.
Then, in the most recent election held in 2010, Republicans took control of the House and Democrats maintain control of the Senate. When this happens, very little actually gets done. Bills must pass both houses of Congress before the President may sign them into law or veto them. If the president vetoes a bill, it does not become a law unless 2/3 of the Senate vote to override the veto. If the Senate the House can't agree on legislation, then nothing reaches the President's desk.
Why am I telling you this? Well, I assume you are either from another country and don't know how the US political system works, or you are simply a moron who was too stoned on Saturday mornings to understand the meaning behind School House Rock. The point being that you have have a basic grasp of the political system before you can understand what it means when I tell you...
wait for it...
Republicans only control the House of Representatives. Democrats still control the Senate and the White House.
The right wingers are gonna be all over this one. After all any time anything Obama fails at is good for America. It must be nice that we have someone who's fault everything is.
Yes! When you have bad ideas and you fail at trying to implement them, that is a good thing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? When Obama succeeds with his policies, America loses. That is what the saying means.
And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress. It was that way when Bush was president. It's that way now. The difference is that when Bush a Republican Congress, things went very well. When Clinton had a Republican Congress, things went very well. When D's took control of Congress in Jan, 2007, unemployment was at 4.7% and the deficit was about $250 billion. Two years after D control of both houses, the unemployment rate was 7.6% and climbing and the deficit was about $1600 billion. The only blame Bush and Obama deserve is for not vetoing every piece of shit bill that passed their desks. Although, Obama does share much of the philosophy with the Democratic Congress.
Fact is, it doesn't matter who wins the White House this November. What matters is which party gets Congress. God help us if it's a mixed result because then both houses will have to bribe eachother with our money to get anything passed!
Slashdot Mirror
So how would you feel if we would invade your country and brought some of our European Freedom?
Freedom was also never the reason. Money (in this case oil) is the reason and freedom is the marketing part.
If freedom would be the real reason, you would have freedom at home as well. You haven't. Companies have freedom, but you don't.
Well, let's see:
Obama is a butthead! Mohammed is a child molester. Moses was a traitor to the Pharaohs that cared for him! Jesus liked wine and traveled with a bunch of guys he repeatedly claimed to love wearing in robes with no visible means of income! Buddha was FAT! Confucius smoked opium! I think I will/will not go to church this weekend. I might even protest while I'm there.
Yep! Still got my freedoms. No one is knocking at the door. My wife and kids are not being tortured. I'm not being dragged to the desert to add to some mass grave.
What do you mean I have no freedoms?
Seems like a pretty hypocritical message, considering all the civilians we've killed over there. In a place where we shouldn't even have military.
The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident. They usually die because a weapon malfunctioned or they were too close to a government building. We also tend to apologize for it and in many cases, notify the civilian population before an attack occurs.. In Iraq, for example, the goal was to free the people there from a tyrant.
Of course, you may disagree with this, but if an Iraqi were to disagree with his government in 2001, they would die. They are free to disagree today. What makes you so special that you deserve freedoms like this and others don't? I served, by the way, not to give you freedoms. You already have them. I served, knowing full well that when I signed, I would be giving those that have not rights the very freedoms that you and I have.
When Al Qaeda kills civilians, the civilians are the target. There is no warning before hand and no apology afterwards. The goal of Al Qaeda is not to free the population, but to convert or enslave them. If you are a Christian, Al Qaeda wants to you convert or die. If you are an atheist, Al Qaeda wants you to convert or die. If you are a Jew, Al Qaeda wants you to die.
"Is it durable enough to be used on washless or "rinse-off" dishes?"
To hell with the dishes, think of the Fleshlights!
Then let's hope it's washable.
You're right. A whole bunch of pork-barrel Republicans also see this as negative. I remember the sarcastic comments Republican congressmen made last test flight when they said, "congratulations to Space-X for doing what NASA did 50 years ago." Such ironic comments given Republicans' supposed private enterprise leanings, but easy to understand when you realize that NASA funding traditionally hasn't been about exciting science so much as a means of funneling large amounts of corporate welfare back into the home states of congressmen.
It was Obama who cancelled the Constellation program and a Democrat led congress that cut NASA's budget. What do Republicans have to do with this?
Hate to respond to a political troll, but I'm tired of seeing Democrats do stupid stuff like this and then turn around and blame Republicans for it.
Why do we need all these fucking gestures and shit? I guess most people still haven't figured out how to TYPE.
It's a workout trying to get connect to recognize what I'm doing, but even if it were more accurate, I still have to hold my arms out to simply find out where the "pointer" is.
A mouse is still a better pointing device. A flick of the wrist is much more efficient in all ways than a wave of the arm.
If dad want to monitor his kids, the best way to do that is to ask them. That is, what a father supposed to do. Sneaking for "bad stuff" means there's no confidence in the children. In that case, the family is already in-secure no matter what are you doing with the network. Don't try to sell family problems as a reason for monitoring. It just doesn't figure.
Yeah, because children NEVER lie to their parents. We are all live in a "Leave it Beaver" world.
I find it sad that whenever a "video game rating" or a "require ID to purchase violent games" article comes up, I see post after post about how it's the parent's responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing. Now here is someone who wants to monitor what his kids are doing electronically, and he's hammered for it. Again, you don't have to like it, but it's a parent's job to know what goes on his/her house, network included.
Yes, I agree that he is going about it the wrong way. It is extremely impractical to capture every single packet for later analysis. If the kids watch a few Netflix videos a month and play a few games of WOW, your packet storage device is full in no time of nothing but the kind of crap you are not looking for. I think a much more sensible solution would be to put the computers in public spaces and set a schedule for when different machines are allowed to be online.
Exactly. Either the "friend" is actually an oppressive government or a guy with some serious problems. Tell him it's not possible. Even if it's possible, it's a bad idea, possibly illegal. Then go take an Ethics class.
Or maybe it's a father who wants to monitor what his kids are doing. You might disagree with that, but as long as he's not beating his kids, how he raises his family is none of your business.
This guy wants to secure his home network. A secure network is a good thing. I'm sure you'll say that this is monitoring, not security. Well, how do you know if you've properly secured your network without monitoring it?
She's a fat Chinese bitch. Oh well.
Quit changing your status to "It's Complicated". You're a damn booty call!
High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.
Taxes on gasoline are $0.31/gallon. Taxes on diesel are $0.30.
However, there may be other taxes that I'm not aware of that are levied before the fuel reaches the pump.
Disregard. From Wikipedia's page on fuel tax:
Fuel taxes in the United States vary by state. The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (4.86 /L) and 24.4 cents per gallon (6.45 /L) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents per gallon for gas (13.07 /L) and 54.6 cents per gallon for diesel (14.42 /L).
High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.
Taxes on gasoline are $0.31/gallon. Taxes on diesel are $0.30.
However, there may be other taxes that I'm not aware of that are levied before the fuel reaches the pump.
The most rabid right-wingers seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. Pay attention to the part that says "for one". It implies that there are others, just like it, but that aren't mentioned. Once you demonstrate that you have the physical capability to understand what someone is saying, we will move to actually discussing whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.
Relax, bud. I agree with nearly everything you said. Maybe not the "shithole" part. With the amount of money that this guy is going to make, very few places will be a shithole for him.
I was merely pointing out that this is more about class envy than paying government bills. I keep hearing "RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!" even after it's been proven to those screaming that it won't make a dent in our budget, much less the deficit.
Good idea or bad idea? I'm afraid I'd have to go with bad. Like you said, if he doesn't want to be here, good riddance. I wish him well.
That said, I'm pretty sure this isn't going anywhere. Republicans, for one, will oppose it just because it comes from Democrats.
Or maybe the fact that it will cost more money to get this law written, debated, passed and enforced than we would see from it. Or is this more about envy because someone is making more money and not paying taxes on it?
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. This comment comes up on every story dealing with mortality risk, and it's getting kind of old. Look, the hazard rate function is not that hard to understand. Educate yourself instead of making the same worn-out joke over and over again, okay?
Funny you should mention Jesus Christ. I wonder how much coffee that guy drank!
*offtopic*
According to the link in your sig, the government is shrinking. Wonder were that extra $1.5 trillion is going.
*/offtopic*
You argument is a fine example of the Moving the goalposts" fallacy.
Here is the conversation we are having:
From AC:
The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East.
From Me:
I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it.
From h4rr4r:
That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.
From Me:
Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant
From h4rr4r:
The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts.
From Me:
My roads are funded through my state
And finally, from you:
so this $43,675,900,000 per year doesn't cover the cost of the wars.
So now we are talking about the wars? First, the fact that we have not stolen Iraq's oil is proof that neither Iraq war was not a war for oil. Go there, spend a bit of time with the people there, visit the mass grave sites and speak with a few of the people who were literally tortured themselves or had their family members tortured. The only role oil played was that it would fund Hussein's activities. But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the wars in the middle east any more than I am here to debate Operation Just Cause.
The OP stated the oil industry is heavily subsidized to pay for our peace keeping efforts in the middle east. I proved that gasoline taxes alone cover the cost. I didn't include the costs the oil companies pay to lease land, taxes private landowners pay, taxes the oil companies pay themselves, or the taxes paid by those in the oil industry. Then someone moved the goal posts and said that the taxes are needed to pay for roads and threw in an insult for good measure. That's a sure sign someone is frustrated they have been proven wrong. I pointed out that roads are the responsibility of the states, with the exception of interstates. Local roads are local responsibility and they should be paid for by the states. The fact that the feds subsidize state road projects is not the point. That's pork paid for out of the general fund and is not what we are discussing here.
This is where you also commit the "Move the goal posts" fallacy. You said:
You're application of the numbers is laughable ignorant.
I also like how you try to twist his argument from paying for war, to patrolling.
and
You do know we have spent over 1.3Trillion dollar in about 10 years, right?
First, I was responding to "massive military presence and operations in the Middle East." That costs about $50 billion a year. You called it "... normal peace time operations, as in keep a fleet there." No one mentioned the wars until you got here.
Next, my numbers are spot on. If you have a problem with them, I refer you to my link.
The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of
The tax you pay is for roads, numbnuts.
The $0.31 does not get sent to the DOD. If you want to double the tax and use that to pay for the Middle East adventures, I fully support that.
My roads are funded through my state. That means the additional state levied gasoline taxes are used to pay for roads along with my registration, property and sales taxes. The only roads the federal government are responsible for are interstates, and even then the states pay for part of that.
No taxes get sent straight to the DOD. Unfortunately, they all go into a giant pot that everyone raids. My point was that the gasoline taxes that are paid into the system are greater than what is taken out to patrol the mid east waters. The rest goes into the pot and I'm sure some of that is used to pay for interstates.
And my nuts have feeling, although that should be none of your concern.
Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.
Because your ability to carpool your kids to school is more important than the lives of innocent Iraqis, gotcha.
I served and spent time in the middle east. I think you have been about our purpose for being there. Our job was not to kill innocent brown people, but to protect them. You didn't seem to care about the mass graves filled with men, and others filled with women, still holding their toddler children. These are the innocent Iraqis and I'm amazed at how much you don't care about them. You seem more concerned about the people we were sent there to kill; the people who filled these mass graves or allowed it to happen.
And I send my kids to private school so they don't get the same brainwashing indoctrination that people like you got from our public school system.
For starters, not all of our interests in the Middle East are oil based. For example, Bahrain has no oil. Bahrain exports things like aluminum. The US Navy's 5th Fleet is also based there. That fleet costs the US taxpayer 10s of billions of dollars. The US Navy 5th Fleet is that massive naval force you allude to that protects our interests in the Middle East. Note the cost; 10's of billions of dollars.
The US uses roughly 386,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day. At a tax of $0.31/gallon, that is $119,660,000 in tax revenue. Multiply that by 365 days a year and the US receives $43,675,900,000 per year from gasoline taxes. The US also uses about 60 billion gallons of diesel each year which calculate to roughly $18 billion in tax revenue per year ($0.30/gallon). So the US receives about $62 billion per year from gasoline taxes alone, which is plenty to fund the 5th Fleet, especially when you consider the taxes paid when cars are sold, various taxes paid by the companies that make cars and components. And, of course, all those "leases" you hear about where "big oil" wants to drill on government land are not free. The government gets a percentage per barrel. Now, granted, the domestic oil production is not in the Middle East, but like you said, "The middle east has to be controlled to keep world market prices stable".
So, yeah! The cost of patrolling the waters of the Mid East is more than covered by our gasoline and diesel taxes alone. Also note that oil is not the only interest we have in the region. It's a big one, sure, but not the only one.
Don't like my numbers? THIS site says the following:
The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of gasoline we purchase.
But you say:
That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.
Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant.
Moose are not found in those areas as pipe lines are not normally built over the swamps and in the forests they prefer.
It appears they "prefer" the pipelines.
Again we see your ignorance. Those refuges only hold enough oil for months of US use. They should be kept until we actually need them.
Well, for starters, we won't extract and refine it all at once. And to be fair, I'm fully aware of the impact drilling will have on prices. If I had it my way, we'd tax it as a condition of permission to drill there and use the money to invest in renewables. For example, a $10/barrel tax times the billions of barrels in ANWR alone would be more than enough to not just fund, but INCREASE the amount of money funding our fusion research.
The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.
Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.
I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it. If not, consider that every single product I buy is transported to the store I bought is also using fuel, which is taxed, which I pay indirectly. Of course, all those products are made from parts, pieces and ingredients that had to be shipped to whoever made that product, which I also paid the tax for. Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.
Although, it would be better if we could produce our own energy. Then we could tell those in the Middle East to pound sand and let the fund their own militaries. But then you have to find a way around the people protesting that producing our own energy might cause moose to stop fucking. Not that any of these people have ever seen a moose or have bothered to travel to places they have convinced themselves will be completely destroyed. Nor have they bothered to simply do the math and realize that some of these refuges are larger than most states and producing energy from these places would have the environmental impact of building a library in Wisconsin. Of course, they also refuse to consider that environmental impact from our heavily monitored and regulated drilling practices at home are much less than the impact from places that ruled by a prince or king or self appointed leader for life.
No. What these people want is for us to live like farmers from the 1700's, only without wood burning or producing livestock. They want us to grow our own food to share with the bugs and rodents that will decimate our crops and lead us to the brink of starvation. Of course, I need to stress that THEY want US to live that way. They will continue to live in their climate controlled apartments and drive their cars to and fro because they recycle the vitamin water bottles they drink, so they are OK. Is us that is the problem. Not them. /rant
Having been picked on at the start, Apple has become one of the biggest bullies on the block. It's as if the Ugly Duckling rather than go swanning (heh) around saying "Look how pretty I am" decided "Right, now I'm 4x the size of those bastards who picked on me. Time for some payback" and went on a revenge spree.
This is one of those very rare times were I want to see some hacker group take Apple down. Certainly some "Anonymous" guy was looking forward to his new OneX.
As I understand it, missing NEON is the rough counterpart of missing SSE. AMD's Athlon CPUs support x86, but after Intel introduced SSE instructions in the Pentium III, the next couple versions of Athlon supported AMD's own competing 3DNow instructions instead of SSE.
True, but if I recall, applications still ran fine if SSE and/or 3DNow were not detected.
The country is in the hole due to four distinctly Republican policies. Namely, two unpaid for (and unnecessary wars), two mammoth tax cuts for multi-millionaires and a medicare giveaway (at least Obama's health care plan attempts to pay for itself). I don't think anyone with a brain larger than a walnut thinks Gore would have gone down any of those utterly disastrous paths. Now people are screaming for Bush II. Amazing...as always.
If what you say were true, the average deficit under Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress he had for the first six years of his term, would have been more than $250 billion. Instead, it was around $250 billion. Obama's average deficit is around $1250 billion. So it's not the wars. It's not the tax cuts. You are full of shit.
Yes, you are correct. Republicans are in a position to obstruct. But the GP said "So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?"
Um... no. First, the economy was bad before the Repubs retook control the House. Next, it hasn't gotten worse since they took the House. So, no. They are not responsible for the weak economy.
As for controlling the Senate, it is true that you pretty much need 2/3 control to get absolutely anything passed. However, Obama had this for the first two years of his term. That's how his health care bill got passed. For two years, Obama literally had everything he wanted and there was nothing Republicans could do to stop him. So, blaming Republicans is a lie.
I bet you cant wait to join your friends and blame Obama.
Um... Please allow me to quote myself from a the very comment you responded to:
And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress.
Any questions?
So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?
Wow! I don't believe I have to explain this. But, here we go:
Congress is made up of two houses: The House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members are supposed to be closer to their constituents and all of them are elected every two years. The Senate holds elections every two years, but each term is six years with 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years. Of course, as you know, the President is elected every four years for a max of two terms.
Now, Republicans held the House of Representatives from 1995 until 2007. The Senate was more or less under Republican control through most of the Bush years, but during this time, Senators had a habit of switching sides to get what they wanted. This would either tilt control over the Dems or force a balanced Senate. However, in 2007, both houses of Congress, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate both fell under the control of Democrats. This continued through the final two years of Bush AND THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA.
Then, in the most recent election held in 2010, Republicans took control of the House and Democrats maintain control of the Senate. When this happens, very little actually gets done. Bills must pass both houses of Congress before the President may sign them into law or veto them. If the president vetoes a bill, it does not become a law unless 2/3 of the Senate vote to override the veto. If the Senate the House can't agree on legislation, then nothing reaches the President's desk.
Why am I telling you this? Well, I assume you are either from another country and don't know how the US political system works, or you are simply a moron who was too stoned on Saturday mornings to understand the meaning behind School House Rock. The point being that you have have a basic grasp of the political system before you can understand what it means when I tell you...
wait for it...
Republicans only control the House of Representatives. Democrats still control the Senate and the White House.
The right wingers are gonna be all over this one. After all any time anything Obama fails at is good for America. It must be nice that we have someone who's fault everything is.
Yes! When you have bad ideas and you fail at trying to implement them, that is a good thing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? When Obama succeeds with his policies, America loses. That is what the saying means.
And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress. It was that way when Bush was president. It's that way now. The difference is that when Bush a Republican Congress, things went very well. When Clinton had a Republican Congress, things went very well. When D's took control of Congress in Jan, 2007, unemployment was at 4.7% and the deficit was about $250 billion. Two years after D control of both houses, the unemployment rate was 7.6% and climbing and the deficit was about $1600 billion. The only blame Bush and Obama deserve is for not vetoing every piece of shit bill that passed their desks. Although, Obama does share much of the philosophy with the Democratic Congress.
Fact is, it doesn't matter who wins the White House this November. What matters is which party gets Congress. God help us if it's a mixed result because then both houses will have to bribe eachother with our money to get anything passed!