And, yes, I know you did mention that he spends this money on food, etc. My point is that the $9.00 itself doesn't increase the economy, it's some small fraction thereof that actually increases the economy. The $9.00 profit made in an hour is actually a measure of the velocity of the economy, not a measure of the increase of the total value of the economy.
I also failed to mention the price of whatever tool he used to carve the wood. Besides, who will buy clogs for any price, much less $10? Who can carve clogs in an hour? and Who can buy that much wood for a dollar? Fact is, if you are so good that you can carve a pair of clogs by hand in an hour that you can sell for $10.00, you are selling yourself short. You should be making much more than less than $9.00/hr.
The point was to keep it simple and show that these big, faceless, evil corporations that make a profit by doing something that other people are willing to pay for are what grows the economy. That's how money is made. (And by economy, I mean GDP. And by money, I mean worth and value.)
The truth is that a product should be worth more than the sum of its components. If it's not, there is no point in producing it. That extra value is called profit.
And then the savvy businessman decided to move his profits into an off-shore tax haven. Meanwhile, the local infrastructure that savvy businessman used goes unsupported and the country rots from within. Globalism distorts your simplistic model.
That may be true, but unless he moved himself offshore, his money is still spent locally. Where the money "sits" is irrelevant. It's where it is spent that matters.
That's what free markets do: they generate scarcity pricing and Pareto-optimal allocation of resources.
Cap and Trade is the GOVERNMENT generating scarcity in order to raise prices. It's the exact opposite of the free market and violates the most fundamental law of economics.
Let's see you turn dirt and seeds into food without using energy.
You know, I can't buy the old school hydrochlorofluorocarbon [wikipedia.org] to use as a refrigerant in my new car. The new stuff doesn't work as well (it's close) but it's a lot better for the environment. Small things like this can be important to entities like the EPA.
Classic case! Thank you for pointing it out. I live in Texas and keep my thermostat at 75 degrees in my home. That's pretty warm, but it's about 25 degrees less than outside. I have a Puron AC unit. Like you said, it's not as efficient as the old freon we used to use, meaning that it has to run more to keep my house at a balmy 75 degrees, MEANING IT USES MORE ENERGY. It's a trade-off.
Tell me why there aren't nuclear power plants in every township in the United States? That is easy to see, right? People fear for their health and safety. The same could be said to a lesser degree of smokestacks and egregiously energy consuming automobiles.
And here is where you hit the nail on the head. There has been one nuclear accident in the US at Three Mile Island. No one died. For that matter, the safety protocols worked exactly as they should have. Unfortunately, the media and enviro-groups spread so much FUD that nuclear energy became a bad word (phrase... whatever). Also note that the same enviros that drove out nuclear are the same ones that are driving out every other energy source proposed today.
But if we can tell these idiots to STFU and allow for nuclear to become our primary power source, make electricity plentiful enough (read, CHEAP!) to not just power our homes and businesses, but our cars as well. We can do electric cars with batteries, supplemented by power rails on our interstates (like trains use). This will even make non-electrics more popular as we will no longer be using petroleum to power the processing our petroleum based and alcohol based fuels.
And yes, you have my full permission to build a nuclear plant in my back yard!
I'm amused by Americans who think they are being "taxed to death" but have no problem spending 40 percent of their incomes for corporate profits, which despite some other conventional wisdom, does not come back to the economy.
Really? Where does it go?
In a technical sense, you are correct. Corporate profits do not come back to the economy because they NEVER LEAVE THE ECONOMY! Corporate profits are shareholder profits. Shareholders are citizens that spend money or save for retirement (meaning that they will spend it later).
Profits, by definition, are what make the economy grow! Allow me to explain. Let's say a carpenter buys a piece of wood for $1.00. He carves it into a pair of clogging shoes, which takes him one hour. He sells those shoes for $10.00. He made $9.00 profit. Where did that extra $9.00 come from? Where does it go now? The extra nine bucks (profit) is how economies grow. He took $1.00 worth of wood plus an hour of his time and turned them into shoes worth $10.00. He has increased the economy by $9.00 at the cost of 1 hour.
Now what does he do with his profits? Same thing everyone else does; He spends them. He eats, pays bills, pays for his home and so on. That's what drives the economy.
You're right. This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans." The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of this bill is huge.
NO NO NO! We have nothing to worry about!!
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." --Barack Obama Dover NH, Sept 12, 2008
See, the leader has spoken. There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr
(If I need a sarc tag, you need to go to another site)
You would seriously allow a school official (or anyone below a police officer) to strip search your child in the same room or even the next room?!? What the hell is wrong with you?
99 percent of parents I know would physically stop any such action from occurring, and I don't blame them at all!
Unfortunately, 99% of the parents you know are going to have to wait with their child, who can not go to the bathroom until this is complete, until a judge can issue a warrant and do the search anyway. Or, they will be following the cop car to Juvenile Hall where they will take their kid after being arrested at the school's request and perform the strip search anyway, by whatever officer is available, and without the parent's being present. Oh, and let's not forget the lawyers fees, court dates, their kid going to the "bad-kid" school until they are found "not-guilty"... IF they are found "not-guilty".
So, would I allow a school official or police officer to strip search my kid? If the searcher is the same gender as my child, sure, provided that they have a damn good reason for doing so. I'll want to know what they are looking for (better be life threatening), what makes them think my kid is hiding it (I want names) and is there another way of doing the search (like "throw your clothes over the screen here").
If something is found, I beat my kid's ass and apologize to the school for my kid not fessing up and letting it go that far. If nothing is found, I beat the principal's ass and OWN that school.
So, how's this, what the Hell is wrong with you? Yes, we know your little cupcake would NEVER do anything wrong so any accusations must be lies from someone not as pretty and jealous, right?
Go ahead and tell all the kids that no one can search beneath their clothing. Guess how the weed is going to get into the school. Guess where the guns and knives will be hidden.
Why not just ban searching all together? Seriously, what's the point? If you are going to allow kids to hide anything they want in the tighty whities, why make them go through the trouble. Hell, we could give them bags when they walk into the school and tell them to place their contraband in there. That way, they won't risk smoking ball-sweat weed or a gun going off so close to their junk. We wouldn't want a switchblade opening up and slicing into some kids giblets would we? Safety must be a concern!
Oh, and your "congressional report detailing the biological agents we sent to Iraq", here's the very first thing it said:
Iraq was believed to have been manufacturing mustard gas at a production facility in Samarra since the early 1980s. It also began an extensive program to produce nerve agent precursor chemicals, taking advantage of its own natural resources. Phosphate mines/industries are at Akashat, Al Qaim, and Rutbah. The Iraqi Al Fallujah gas warfare complex was believed to be capable of producing up to 1,000 tons per month of Sarin, as well as the nerve agent VX. In addition, with the assistance of foreign firms, Iraq developed the capability to experiment with hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen chloride, and lewisite.
Wait, you said we sent them to Iraq. Why was Iraq producing them? That doesn't make sense. Also, while it does list the NBC (WMD to you civilians) capabilities of Iraq before the war, I didn't see anything in there about what we sent them. Maybe you should read it again.
OH, and I can't blame Carter for giving the green light to invade Iran. Remember the whole Iran/Hostage thingie? Were you even born yet? Hell, if Carter gave the OK that's the best move Carter made... EVER! I wish he would have done more! Remember, we gave Stalin the green light to invade Germany. Was Roosevelt wrong to do so?
Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce
Um... that's nice, but it doesn't say how much. It is not uncommon to send samples of biotoxins and dangerous organisms such as anthrax to countries all over the world. This is not banned. Hell, anthrax grows naturally in the soil. The key point is "research materials". This means samples in small containers. You make it sound like we sent them artillery shells pre-loaded with sarin gas or something. From the very liberal site, CommonDreams.org:
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
From the same site:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
Wait... The CDC sent SAMPLES to Iraq? (Wait! Rumsfield didn't work for the CDC.) I thought we armed them. That's what you said, right? Here's is your quote:
I'm saying we gave him the weapons to complete the atrocities
GASP!!! Oh my goodness. You said we gave them WEAPONS to complete the atrocities. Turns out that the CDC gave them samples. You said "weapons"... Facts say "samples". Weapons != Samples. Hmmmm... Either you are ignorant of the facts or you exaggerated with the intent to mislead and place blame where it doesn't belong. That's called lying! So, tell me, are you ignorant or dishonest?
Look, it doesn't matter so there no point arguing it. I don't give a rat's ass if the CIA placed the Baath party in power in the 1960's. That was over forty five years ago. Besides, it was the Baathists or the Russians. Nikita Khrushchev was in charge of the Soviets then. Remember, the guy who tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? Also keep in mind that this was about 10 years after Stalin's death and his iron fist still echoed rule in The Soviet Union. You remember Stalin, right? The guy that killed more people than Hitler? (Oh, wait, are you going to point out that we were allies with Stalin too? We sent Stalin weapons also.) Why were we allies with Stalin? Because he was the enemy of our enemy!!! Just like the Baathists, and just like Saddam Hussein. So are you going to say that America is bad because we were Stalin's ally?
Anyway, I don't give a rat's ass because it so friggin long ago that it doesn't matter. But you know what? I'll let you have it. Let's say we not only installed the Baathists, but we installed Saddam Hussein too (I already proved we didn't, but let's pretend). Let's even say that we completely armed Saddam, begged him to invade Kuwait, and controlled his every move up until 2002. Let's pretend all that is true. So what? Are you saying that we can no longer do anything about him? Do we let him kill his own people, rape the mothers and wives
I'm saying we gave him the weapons to complete the atrocities, and that we didn't say anything about it while we watched them happen.
Oh. Well then we shouldn't have done anything at all.... EVER. I mean, if we installed the guy (which is BS) and supplied him with weapons (which is more BS), then we shouldn't do anything about it all at any point EVER.
Uhh, Outside of a immediate threat to others what is wrong with calling the parents in to oversee a search of a minor?
Personally if I was the girls father the vice principal and nurses would not have heard the end of it.
I agree, but I don't know what would be worse, getting strip searched by the vice principal or getting strip searched by my vice principal while my mother looks on. (Although, I think having the parent in the next room would be sufficient if that's OK with the accused and the parent.)
And if I were the parent and nothing was found, there would be hell to pay whether I was called or not!
Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.
That's when you call the cops and have it done by professionals who know how to do it properly. Even if my kid was carrying drugs in his or her underwear, I would not want a school administrator doing the search. You think you've got that much evidence, then you pick up the goddamned phone and phone the goddamned cops. If you're a school employee, your job is not to do strip searches, and I hope the kid's lawyers bankrupt the goddamned school. They overstepped their bounds so badly that it's difficult to imagine how they're judgement could have been any worse.
Agreed. However, for the sake of argument, consider the following hypothetical: You received a credible tip from multiple sources that a girl has... I don't know... cyanide or something stuffed in her panties. So, you place this girl under "observation" to make sure she doesn't ditch anything while you call her parents and the police. The police say they will be there as soon as they can, but it may be two hours or longer. Her parents are at work and won't be coming at all.
About 20 minutes into the waiting, she claims she has to go to the bathroom. What do you do? Do you forbid her from going to the bathroom or do you send someone in there with her to watch her so she doesn't flush the evidence?
Clarence Thomas, who 'asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."'
I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.
The majority agrees with that part. From TFA:
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
If you've ever had to be responsible for a bunch of kids, you would understand.
Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.
It seems that the judge agrees with me. From TFA:
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
I also hope that the student that gave the "tip" that this poor girl had pills in her underwear gets an ass-whoopin severe enough to make her grandkids wince when sitting down!
Where do you think the billions go ? Do you think they vanish ?
They pay for the three B's in military supply: beans, bullets and bandaids.
They also pay for candy for the kids, fuel for the tanks, hummers, predators, transport planes and ships, salaries, hazard fire pay, those Iraqis and Bangladeshis serving chow, sodas for morale, double-A batteries, missiles, body armor, helicopter maintenance, tank treads, warlord bribes, encryption dongles and the list goes on and on and on and on. Supplying a military is not cheap. Supplying a military in a combat zone is even less cheap.
So... you are saying that there was no profiteering?
No, I'm saying that there was no conspiracy to fake a war for the purpose of "profiteering". Sure, there was that Iraqi that sold Haliburton a case of Cokes that averaged out to about five bucks per can... yeah, that guy "profiteered". I'm sure that some of the companies that were working over there showed a profit. That is the purpose of business, after all. But the primary motivation for the war was not profits. (Truth be known, it was about oil. Not that we wanted the oil, but the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose canon and his oil could finance one hell of a thorn in the side of the free world. Saddam really could have taken over the mid-east within 10 years without the UN getting all in his business. The UN was tiring of the Oil-for-Food thing and the US was losing support where Iraq was concerned. That Saddam vs. Hitler comparison we kept hearing about wasn't made up. The man could have swept across the Mid-East like the Blitzkrieg swept across Europe... all because of the funding from oil)
Also, re-read the original statement where the term "profiteering" came from:
I'm suggesting that an invading army, who has invaded on a foundation of lies and profiteering
Iraq was not invaded on foundation of lies and profiteering. First, there was the WMD thing. Call that a mistake if you wish, but it certainly wasn't lying. If you are going to call Bush a liar, then there's a whole shitload of other people that you need to call liars as well, starting with former President Clinton, Al Gore and our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Next, as I've proven repeatedly, the war in Iraq was not for the purpose of "profiteering". There are much easier and safer ways to "profiteer" than to start a war. Ending hunger in Africa would be a fine example. Plenty of "profiteering" to go around and you get called a saint by everyone and have statues of yourself built all over the world for all time. Why would you want to start a war? Again, the conspiracy theory sux.
Profiteering? Really? We've spent $80+ Billion/year. How does $-80,000,000,000 somehow equal a profit?
LOL
Who do you imagine gets that cash? Iraqis?
Most of it will go into the pockets of multinational corporations. They are 'profiteering'.
So you think GWBush/Hitler/Cheney:
Cooked up scheme to make it look like there were WMD's in Iraq. (Knowing that Saddam Hussein wouldn't let UN inspectors in and that the UN would apply sanctions for ten years because of it)
Convinced many other countries to join in
Flawlessly executed a war, but not the after-war to maintain MNC presence
Hire MNC's to handle the day-to-day operations in Iraq
Somehow keep MNC stock from skyrocketing (Haliburton Stock is close the same level today as it was in 2003)
Prolong war to increase MNC profits at cost of tax dollars, the lives of soldiers and innocents, and the political career of yourself, your friends, and your political party
????
Profit!
Seriously, wouldn't it have just been easier and cheaper to simply hire these unnamed uber-powerful MNC's directly to do something else, like build shuttle parts or something? Really, if Haliburton can run Iraq, couldn't they run Somalia or Rwanda? I mean, if the goal is simply to give these guys tax money, why not give them tax money to do something that won't cost your political career? They could build a space port, air port, naval port, sea port, big-ass bridge, air craft carrier, homeless shelters, inner-city skyscraper farms, inner city schools or a billion other things that would not only overpay your fictional MNC's but actually make you a hero in the eyes of the people who hate you because they they thought you stole the election.
Seriously! Why a war? You are claiming that Bush/Hitler/Cheney are some kind of evil geniuses for starting this whole thing (which would have been impossible to pull that many strings), yet complete dumb-asses for not finding a better way like that many I've mentioned. They can't be both.
(Oh, and since you don't seem to know... Multinational Corporations... or MNC's... span across multiple nations (thus the name). Why would the president of the US want to give profits to MNC's? Wouldn't Bush want to give the money to a purely American company? Sorry, but your theory is stupid)
And if the country invading us had put that dictator into power...
Please, don't let the facts change what you want to believe, but please read the following:
The meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council on July 22, 1979, started with Saddam Hussein reading a list of enemies of the state. There was a stunned silence at the Command Council, as many of the men present were listed as enemies of the state. Included were trade union leaders and religious leaders who had actually helped to consolidate the Ba'ath power. As names were read from the list, each were arrested and taken away from the council meeting. Within mere hours 21 of the men that Saddam named were dead. Not only did Saddam order the executions, but he also personally participated in the murders.
Saddam's first "cleansing" of Iraq continued for a week. And by August 1, at least 450 of Iraq's most prominent men were dead. They included members of the Ba'ath party, union leaders, financiers, army officers, lawyers, judges, journalists, editors, professors, religious leaders, and leaders of most of the smaller parties and ethnic groups.
Tell me again how we played a part in this? Jimmy Carter was President at the time. What did Carter do to facilitate this?
Google "Saddam's rise to power" and educate yourself further.
...and then strangled our country with sanctions for a decade...
UN != US. Also, note that the UN allowed for oil to be sold for food, medicine and infrastructure maintenance (It was called the "Oil for Food Program" for Pete's sake!). The Iraqi government chose to ignore those rules and built palaces, paid bribes and attempted to cheat the system by sneaking in contraband.
...suddenly accused him of atrocities...
Are you really saying that there were no atrocities?
Sorry, I just found three pieces of bullshit in the first two lines of your periodless statement. I won't go any further until you pull your head from your ass and recognize facts for what they are. Just because you make it up or really REALLY want to believe something doesn't make it true. Reality is not based on what you think. It should be the other way around.
Unfortunately, if we are invaded, we wouldn't have the right to attack the invaders. At least that's the principle we live by in Iraq.
Forgive me for replying twice, but the stupidity of the comment warrants it.
So, what you are suggesting is that an invading army, after taking control of a country, should grant rights to the population to shoot at them? Really? "Attention all citizens of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control. However, feel free to break out your guns and shoot at us whenever you like. We are not the type to take away your rights to kill us so please, if you see one of our soldiers walking down the street, you are well within your right to shoot at him/her. We'll understand and do what we can to make ourselves an easier target to hit. If you are unable to hit a moving target, please ask our soldiers to stand still while you hone your shooting skills."
Unfortunately, if we are invaded, we wouldn't have the right to attack the invaders. At least that's the principle we live by in Iraq.
If we were living under an oppressive dictator and another country invaded to remove that dictator and hand the country back to the American public, then yes, you would be correct.
What would the harm be in that? Would he have been somehow injured by speaking?
YES!
Remember, the TSA (and police in general) are NOT on your side. They have no right to any information from you beyond what's legally required. If he just told them what they wanted to hear, he'd be giving up his freedoms under the fourth amendment. THAT is the harm in this situation. Additionally, once you give up your freedoms, you usually have to fight pretty hard to get them back.
Wow! And you were doing so well up until that point. Sorry, but the fourth amendment does not apply when you purchase an aircraft ticket, leave your home, go to an airport and try to board a plane. The fourth applies to "unreasonable" search and seizure. Sorry, but searching someone who's about to board a plane that is full of fuel and people is not unreasonable, especially considering that they are a target. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the people and the law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Remember, the keyword here is "unreasonable". Is it reasonable to TSA to search you and your bags before you board a plane? You bet your ass it is!
Remember, you don't have to fly commercial. You are free to charter your own plane and take off from a private airfield. No searches, no ID check... nothing. You just show up, board the plane and take off. And if you go to an airport and you don't feel like you should be searched, you are free to turn around and walk out the airport doors. You might not even be charged for parking. No one is forcing you to get searched as no one is forcing you to fly.
If other travelers were inconvenienced, they only have the TSA's unreasonable seizure and detention to blame, not the detainee.
I think the blame can go both ways. Sure, TSA has no business knowing how he makes his money or why he's traveling with it, as I stated above. However, he could have simply answered the question and gone about his business. What would the harm be in that? Would he have been somehow injured by speaking? Would it have led to him being barred from speaking out against the government? Would answering the questions forbid him from owning a gun or practicing his religion of choice? No to all of these. If his goal was to prove a point, then he can prove it his own damn time, not at the expense of those trying to get the kids to Grandma's house!
Slashdot Mirror
And, yes, I know you did mention that he spends this money on food, etc. My point is that the $9.00 itself doesn't increase the economy, it's some small fraction thereof that actually increases the economy. The $9.00 profit made in an hour is actually a measure of the velocity of the economy, not a measure of the increase of the total value of the economy.
This is a good (if a bit technical in some parts) read: Quantity theory of money
I also failed to mention the price of whatever tool he used to carve the wood. Besides, who will buy clogs for any price, much less $10? Who can carve clogs in an hour? and Who can buy that much wood for a dollar? Fact is, if you are so good that you can carve a pair of clogs by hand in an hour that you can sell for $10.00, you are selling yourself short. You should be making much more than less than $9.00/hr.
The point was to keep it simple and show that these big, faceless, evil corporations that make a profit by doing something that other people are willing to pay for are what grows the economy. That's how money is made. (And by economy, I mean GDP. And by money, I mean worth and value.)
The truth is that a product should be worth more than the sum of its components. If it's not, there is no point in producing it. That extra value is called profit.
And then the savvy businessman decided to move his profits into an off-shore tax haven. Meanwhile, the local infrastructure that savvy businessman used goes unsupported and the country rots from within. Globalism distorts your simplistic model.
That may be true, but unless he moved himself offshore, his money is still spent locally. Where the money "sits" is irrelevant. It's where it is spent that matters.
That's what free markets do: they generate scarcity pricing and Pareto-optimal allocation of resources.
Cap and Trade is the GOVERNMENT generating scarcity in order to raise prices. It's the exact opposite of the free market and violates the most fundamental law of economics.
Complete the following sentence: The USA needs 25% of the world's energy because...?
... we can afford it!
Try this one on for size:
You don't see the hypocrisy of using energy to post on slashdot and lecture me about wasting energy because...?
What does starving have to do with energy?
Let's see you turn dirt and seeds into food without using energy.
You know, I can't buy the old school hydrochlorofluorocarbon [wikipedia.org] to use as a refrigerant in my new car. The new stuff doesn't work as well (it's close) but it's a lot better for the environment. Small things like this can be important to entities like the EPA.
Classic case! Thank you for pointing it out. I live in Texas and keep my thermostat at 75 degrees in my home. That's pretty warm, but it's about 25 degrees less than outside. I have a Puron AC unit. Like you said, it's not as efficient as the old freon we used to use, meaning that it has to run more to keep my house at a balmy 75 degrees, MEANING IT USES MORE ENERGY. It's a trade-off.
Tell me why there aren't nuclear power plants in every township in the United States? That is easy to see, right? People fear for their health and safety. The same could be said to a lesser degree of smokestacks and egregiously energy consuming automobiles.
And here is where you hit the nail on the head. There has been one nuclear accident in the US at Three Mile Island. No one died. For that matter, the safety protocols worked exactly as they should have. Unfortunately, the media and enviro-groups spread so much FUD that nuclear energy became a bad word (phrase... whatever). Also note that the same enviros that drove out nuclear are the same ones that are driving out every other energy source proposed today.
But if we can tell these idiots to STFU and allow for nuclear to become our primary power source, make electricity plentiful enough (read, CHEAP!) to not just power our homes and businesses, but our cars as well. We can do electric cars with batteries, supplemented by power rails on our interstates (like trains use). This will even make non-electrics more popular as we will no longer be using petroleum to power the processing our petroleum based and alcohol based fuels.
And yes, you have my full permission to build a nuclear plant in my back yard!
I'm amused by Americans who think they are being "taxed to death" but have no problem spending 40 percent of their incomes for corporate profits, which despite some other conventional wisdom, does not come back to the economy.
Really? Where does it go?
In a technical sense, you are correct. Corporate profits do not come back to the economy because they NEVER LEAVE THE ECONOMY! Corporate profits are shareholder profits. Shareholders are citizens that spend money or save for retirement (meaning that they will spend it later).
Profits, by definition, are what make the economy grow! Allow me to explain. Let's say a carpenter buys a piece of wood for $1.00. He carves it into a pair of clogging shoes, which takes him one hour. He sells those shoes for $10.00. He made $9.00 profit. Where did that extra $9.00 come from? Where does it go now? The extra nine bucks (profit) is how economies grow. He took $1.00 worth of wood plus an hour of his time and turned them into shoes worth $10.00. He has increased the economy by $9.00 at the cost of 1 hour.
Now what does he do with his profits? Same thing everyone else does; He spends them. He eats, pays bills, pays for his home and so on. That's what drives the economy.
You're right. This bill should really be called "A Tax Increase For All Americans." The estimated tax revenue the government expects to extract from the population from the passage of this bill is huge.
NO NO NO! We have nothing to worry about!!
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
--Barack Obama
Dover NH, Sept 12, 2008
See, the leader has spoken. There will be no tax increase for those of us making under $250,000/yr
(If I need a sarc tag, you need to go to another site)
You would seriously allow a school official (or anyone below a police officer) to strip search your child in the same room or even the next room?!? What the hell is wrong with you?
99 percent of parents I know would physically stop any such action from occurring, and I don't blame them at all!
Unfortunately, 99% of the parents you know are going to have to wait with their child, who can not go to the bathroom until this is complete, until a judge can issue a warrant and do the search anyway. Or, they will be following the cop car to Juvenile Hall where they will take their kid after being arrested at the school's request and perform the strip search anyway, by whatever officer is available, and without the parent's being present. Oh, and let's not forget the lawyers fees, court dates, their kid going to the "bad-kid" school until they are found "not-guilty"... IF they are found "not-guilty".
So, would I allow a school official or police officer to strip search my kid? If the searcher is the same gender as my child, sure, provided that they have a damn good reason for doing so. I'll want to know what they are looking for (better be life threatening), what makes them think my kid is hiding it (I want names) and is there another way of doing the search (like "throw your clothes over the screen here").
If something is found, I beat my kid's ass and apologize to the school for my kid not fessing up and letting it go that far. If nothing is found, I beat the principal's ass and OWN that school.
So, how's this, what the Hell is wrong with you? Yes, we know your little cupcake would NEVER do anything wrong so any accusations must be lies from someone not as pretty and jealous, right?
Go ahead and tell all the kids that no one can search beneath their clothing. Guess how the weed is going to get into the school. Guess where the guns and knives will be hidden.
Why not just ban searching all together? Seriously, what's the point? If you are going to allow kids to hide anything they want in the tighty whities, why make them go through the trouble. Hell, we could give them bags when they walk into the school and tell them to place their contraband in there. That way, they won't risk smoking ball-sweat weed or a gun going off so close to their junk. We wouldn't want a switchblade opening up and slicing into some kids giblets would we? Safety must be a concern!
Oh, and your "congressional report detailing the biological agents we sent to Iraq", here's the very first thing it said:
Iraq was believed to have been manufacturing mustard gas at a production facility in Samarra since the early 1980s. It also began an extensive program to produce nerve agent precursor chemicals, taking advantage of its own natural resources. Phosphate mines/industries are at Akashat, Al Qaim, and Rutbah. The Iraqi Al Fallujah gas warfare complex was believed to be capable of producing up to 1,000 tons per month of Sarin, as well as the nerve agent VX. In addition, with the assistance of foreign firms, Iraq developed the capability to experiment with hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen chloride, and lewisite.
Wait, you said we sent them to Iraq. Why was Iraq producing them? That doesn't make sense. Also, while it does list the NBC (WMD to you civilians) capabilities of Iraq before the war, I didn't see anything in there about what we sent them. Maybe you should read it again.
OH, and I can't blame Carter for giving the green light to invade Iran. Remember the whole Iran/Hostage thingie? Were you even born yet? Hell, if Carter gave the OK that's the best move Carter made... EVER! I wish he would have done more! Remember, we gave Stalin the green light to invade Germany. Was Roosevelt wrong to do so?
Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce
Um... that's nice, but it doesn't say how much. It is not uncommon to send samples of biotoxins and dangerous organisms such as anthrax to countries all over the world. This is not banned. Hell, anthrax grows naturally in the soil. The key point is "research materials". This means samples in small containers. You make it sound like we sent them artillery shells pre-loaded with sarin gas or something. From the very liberal site, CommonDreams.org:
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
From the same site:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
Wait... The CDC sent SAMPLES to Iraq? (Wait! Rumsfield didn't work for the CDC.) I thought we armed them. That's what you said, right? Here's is your quote:
I'm saying we gave him the weapons to complete the atrocities
GASP!!! Oh my goodness. You said we gave them WEAPONS to complete the atrocities. Turns out that the CDC gave them samples. You said "weapons"... Facts say "samples". Weapons != Samples. Hmmmm... Either you are ignorant of the facts or you exaggerated with the intent to mislead and place blame where it doesn't belong. That's called lying! So, tell me, are you ignorant or dishonest?
Look, it doesn't matter so there no point arguing it. I don't give a rat's ass if the CIA placed the Baath party in power in the 1960's. That was over forty five years ago. Besides, it was the Baathists or the Russians. Nikita Khrushchev was in charge of the Soviets then. Remember, the guy who tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? Also keep in mind that this was about 10 years after Stalin's death and his iron fist still echoed rule in The Soviet Union. You remember Stalin, right? The guy that killed more people than Hitler? (Oh, wait, are you going to point out that we were allies with Stalin too? We sent Stalin weapons also.) Why were we allies with Stalin? Because he was the enemy of our enemy!!! Just like the Baathists, and just like Saddam Hussein. So are you going to say that America is bad because we were Stalin's ally?
Anyway, I don't give a rat's ass because it so friggin long ago that it doesn't matter. But you know what? I'll let you have it. Let's say we not only installed the Baathists, but we installed Saddam Hussein too (I already proved we didn't, but let's pretend). Let's even say that we completely armed Saddam, begged him to invade Kuwait, and controlled his every move up until 2002. Let's pretend all that is true. So what? Are you saying that we can no longer do anything about him? Do we let him kill his own people, rape the mothers and wives
I'm saying we gave him the weapons to complete the atrocities, and that we didn't say anything about it while we watched them happen.
Oh. Well then we shouldn't have done anything at all.... EVER. I mean, if we installed the guy (which is BS) and supplied him with weapons (which is more BS), then we shouldn't do anything about it all at any point EVER.
How's that for a "moral exercise"?
Uhh, Outside of a immediate threat to others what is wrong with calling the parents in to oversee a search of a minor?
Personally if I was the girls father the vice principal and nurses would not have heard the end of it.
I agree, but I don't know what would be worse, getting strip searched by the vice principal or getting strip searched by my vice principal while my mother looks on. (Although, I think having the parent in the next room would be sufficient if that's OK with the accused and the parent.)
And if I were the parent and nothing was found, there would be hell to pay whether I was called or not!
That's when you call the cops and have it done by professionals who know how to do it properly. Even if my kid was carrying drugs in his or her underwear, I would not want a school administrator doing the search. You think you've got that much evidence, then you pick up the goddamned phone and phone the goddamned cops. If you're a school employee, your job is not to do strip searches, and I hope the kid's lawyers bankrupt the goddamned school. They overstepped their bounds so badly that it's difficult to imagine how they're judgement could have been any worse.
Agreed. However, for the sake of argument, consider the following hypothetical:
You received a credible tip from multiple sources that a girl has... I don't know... cyanide or something stuffed in her panties. So, you place this girl under "observation" to make sure she doesn't ditch anything while you call her parents and the police. The police say they will be there as soon as they can, but it may be two hours or longer. Her parents are at work and won't be coming at all.
About 20 minutes into the waiting, she claims she has to go to the bathroom. What do you do? Do you forbid her from going to the bathroom or do you send someone in there with her to watch her so she doesn't flush the evidence?
Clarence Thomas, who 'asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."'
I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.
The majority agrees with that part. From TFA:
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
This is America, where children are the Enemy.
If you've ever had to be responsible for a bunch of kids, you would understand.
Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.
It seems that the judge agrees with me. From TFA:
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
I also hope that the student that gave the "tip" that this poor girl had pills in her underwear gets an ass-whoopin severe enough to make her grandkids wince when sitting down!
Where do you think the billions go ?
Do you think they vanish ?
They pay for the three B's in military supply: beans, bullets and bandaids.
They also pay for candy for the kids, fuel for the tanks, hummers, predators, transport planes and ships, salaries, hazard fire pay, those Iraqis and Bangladeshis serving chow, sodas for morale, double-A batteries, missiles, body armor, helicopter maintenance, tank treads, warlord bribes, encryption dongles and the list goes on and on and on and on. Supplying a military is not cheap. Supplying a military in a combat zone is even less cheap.
So... you are saying that there was no profiteering?
No, I'm saying that there was no conspiracy to fake a war for the purpose of "profiteering". Sure, there was that Iraqi that sold Haliburton a case of Cokes that averaged out to about five bucks per can... yeah, that guy "profiteered". I'm sure that some of the companies that were working over there showed a profit. That is the purpose of business, after all. But the primary motivation for the war was not profits. (Truth be known, it was about oil. Not that we wanted the oil, but the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose canon and his oil could finance one hell of a thorn in the side of the free world. Saddam really could have taken over the mid-east within 10 years without the UN getting all in his business. The UN was tiring of the Oil-for-Food thing and the US was losing support where Iraq was concerned. That Saddam vs. Hitler comparison we kept hearing about wasn't made up. The man could have swept across the Mid-East like the Blitzkrieg swept across Europe... all because of the funding from oil)
Also, re-read the original statement where the term "profiteering" came from:
I'm suggesting that an invading army, who has invaded on a foundation of lies and profiteering
Iraq was not invaded on foundation of lies and profiteering. First, there was the WMD thing. Call that a mistake if you wish, but it certainly wasn't lying. If you are going to call Bush a liar, then there's a whole shitload of other people that you need to call liars as well, starting with former President Clinton, Al Gore and our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Next, as I've proven repeatedly, the war in Iraq was not for the purpose of "profiteering". There are much easier and safer ways to "profiteer" than to start a war. Ending hunger in Africa would be a fine example. Plenty of "profiteering" to go around and you get called a saint by everyone and have statues of yourself built all over the world for all time. Why would you want to start a war? Again, the conspiracy theory sux.
Profiteering? Really? We've spent $80+ Billion/year. How does $-80,000,000,000 somehow equal a profit?
LOL
Who do you imagine gets that cash? Iraqis?
Most of it will go into the pockets of multinational corporations. They are 'profiteering'.
So you think GWBush/Hitler/Cheney:
Seriously, wouldn't it have just been easier and cheaper to simply hire these unnamed uber-powerful MNC's directly to do something else, like build shuttle parts or something? Really, if Haliburton can run Iraq, couldn't they run Somalia or Rwanda? I mean, if the goal is simply to give these guys tax money, why not give them tax money to do something that won't cost your political career? They could build a space port, air port, naval port, sea port, big-ass bridge, air craft carrier, homeless shelters, inner-city skyscraper farms, inner city schools or a billion other things that would not only overpay your fictional MNC's but actually make you a hero in the eyes of the people who hate you because they they thought you stole the election.
Seriously! Why a war? You are claiming that Bush/Hitler/Cheney are some kind of evil geniuses for starting this whole thing (which would have been impossible to pull that many strings), yet complete dumb-asses for not finding a better way like that many I've mentioned. They can't be both.
(Oh, and since you don't seem to know... Multinational Corporations... or MNC's... span across multiple nations (thus the name). Why would the president of the US want to give profits to MNC's? Wouldn't Bush want to give the money to a purely American company? Sorry, but your theory is stupid)
I'm suggesting that an invading army, who has invaded on a foundation of lies and profiteering...
Profiteering? Really? We've spent $80+ Billion/year. How does $-80,000,000,000 somehow equal a profit?
Again, let me remind you that facts do not rely on what you WANT to believe.
And if the country invading us had put that dictator into power...
Please, don't let the facts change what you want to believe, but please read the following:
The meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council on July 22, 1979, started with Saddam Hussein reading a list of enemies of the state. There was a stunned silence at the Command Council, as many of the men present were listed as enemies of the state. Included were trade union leaders and religious leaders who had actually helped to consolidate the Ba'ath power. As names were read from the list, each were arrested and taken away from the council meeting. Within mere hours 21 of the men that Saddam named were dead. Not only did Saddam order the executions, but he also personally participated in the murders.
Saddam's first "cleansing" of Iraq continued for a week. And by August 1, at least 450 of Iraq's most prominent men were dead. They included members of the Ba'ath party, union leaders, financiers, army officers, lawyers, judges, journalists, editors, professors, religious leaders, and leaders of most of the smaller parties and ethnic groups.
Tell me again how we played a part in this? Jimmy Carter was President at the time. What did Carter do to facilitate this?
Google "Saddam's rise to power" and educate yourself further.
...and then strangled our country with sanctions for a decade...
UN != US. Also, note that the UN allowed for oil to be sold for food, medicine and infrastructure maintenance (It was called the "Oil for Food Program" for Pete's sake!). The Iraqi government chose to ignore those rules and built palaces, paid bribes and attempted to cheat the system by sneaking in contraband.
...suddenly accused him of atrocities...
Are you really saying that there were no atrocities?
Sorry, I just found three pieces of bullshit in the first two lines of your periodless statement. I won't go any further until you pull your head from your ass and recognize facts for what they are. Just because you make it up or really REALLY want to believe something doesn't make it true. Reality is not based on what you think. It should be the other way around.
Unfortunately, if we are invaded, we wouldn't have the right to attack the invaders. At least that's the principle we live by in Iraq.
Forgive me for replying twice, but the stupidity of the comment warrants it.
So, what you are suggesting is that an invading army, after taking control of a country, should grant rights to the population to shoot at them? Really? "Attention all citizens of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control. However, feel free to break out your guns and shoot at us whenever you like. We are not the type to take away your rights to kill us so please, if you see one of our soldiers walking down the street, you are well within your right to shoot at him/her. We'll understand and do what we can to make ourselves an easier target to hit. If you are unable to hit a moving target, please ask our soldiers to stand still while you hone your shooting skills."
Unfortunately, if we are invaded, we wouldn't have the right to attack the invaders. At least that's the principle we live by in Iraq.
If we were living under an oppressive dictator and another country invaded to remove that dictator and hand the country back to the American public, then yes, you would be correct.
You would think one of his "friends" would have had the respect and decency to put a pair of pants on this guy.
What would the harm be in that? Would he have been somehow injured by speaking?
YES!
Remember, the TSA (and police in general) are NOT on your side. They have no right to any information from you beyond what's legally required. If he just told them what they wanted to hear, he'd be giving up his freedoms under the fourth amendment. THAT is the harm in this situation. Additionally, once you give up your freedoms, you usually have to fight pretty hard to get them back.
Wow! And you were doing so well up until that point. Sorry, but the fourth amendment does not apply when you purchase an aircraft ticket, leave your home, go to an airport and try to board a plane. The fourth applies to "unreasonable" search and seizure. Sorry, but searching someone who's about to board a plane that is full of fuel and people is not unreasonable, especially considering that they are a target. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the people and the law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Remember, the keyword here is "unreasonable". Is it reasonable to TSA to search you and your bags before you board a plane? You bet your ass it is!
Remember, you don't have to fly commercial. You are free to charter your own plane and take off from a private airfield. No searches, no ID check... nothing. You just show up, board the plane and take off. And if you go to an airport and you don't feel like you should be searched, you are free to turn around and walk out the airport doors. You might not even be charged for parking. No one is forcing you to get searched as no one is forcing you to fly.
If other travelers were inconvenienced, they only have the TSA's unreasonable seizure and detention to blame, not the detainee.
I think the blame can go both ways. Sure, TSA has no business knowing how he makes his money or why he's traveling with it, as I stated above. However, he could have simply answered the question and gone about his business. What would the harm be in that? Would he have been somehow injured by speaking? Would it have led to him being barred from speaking out against the government? Would answering the questions forbid him from owning a gun or practicing his religion of choice? No to all of these. If his goal was to prove a point, then he can prove it his own damn time, not at the expense of those trying to get the kids to Grandma's house!