I'm not sure where you are coming from with a lot of that? It would seem to me that you have quite an axe to grind with a logical construct. If you can find me some examples of the things about which you write (e.g. a libertarian stating that " if the kid doesn't like getting bad touched or beaten for dinner they have the right to run away"), I will gladly attempt to address your particular grievances, otherwise I'll just have to assume that your ideological opposition has overridden your sense of logic.

Clearly many things that are intellectual constructs have aspects that one can fallaciously conjure into untold horrors, Democracy is no different in this respect. In a Democracy a large mob of people could vote to kill all of a smaller group of people just because they don't like them. Communism is equally vulnerable to the sort of analysis you apply to libertarianism above, if you are unable to work and contribute, what value are you to the collective? Surely you would be a burden and would best be dealt with by elimination or exclusion. If in response you assume that the commune would have a good heart and let you stay in contention to the interests of the mass, then you are allowing your predilection for the same to color your response.

Agreed, "Don't confuse the nation's security with the regime's security." - RMS

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. A voluntary association or union (also sometimes called a voluntary organization, unincorporated association, common-interest association,[1]:266 or just an association) is a group of individuals who enter into an agreement as volunteers to form a body (or organization) to accomplish a purpose.

Sounds like Unions are fine so long as they are voluntary.

If the motors used in the projector were brushless DC motors, then your basic premise of the motors operating at 2x speed would be correct. If the system used some sort of AC motor, then if you could somehow double the power input frequency, then the same basic premise would apply. Both of these examples assume that there is no power shaping going on inside the projection equipment which is most certainly false.

I have a highly reliable (scoff), but nonetheless true anecdote for you. My friend owns a Kel-Tek pf-9 and has had it for a number of years. After he fired a few hundred rounds (store bought Winchester target rounds) through it, the extractor sheared and the weapon would fail to extract the round. He contacted Kel-Tek support and they responded by sending him a replacement. He replaced the extractor and it promptly broke within the first magazine of rounds during his next trip to the range. When he contacted Kel-Tek again, they sent him a bunch of extractors because apparently they were had a bad batch of them. Our local gunsmith checked his work, and within a few hundred rounds, the new extractor broke again.

What good is a gun that will not fire and cycle reliably? I guess if you need a club or something...

Looks like they are off the ground to me?

Just so I am clear, there is quite a bit of openness about the history and current state of the f-35 program. Where are the Solyndra documents?

The difference is that Lockheed isn't a bankrupt company, financed with taxpayer funds, given under dubious circumstances. The contracts for the F-35 and F-22 are well known and derived from congressional authority. If you want congress to investigate the largess at Lockheed, contact your senator, but at least the F-35 contract was awarded openly. We don't know much about the loan that was given to Solyndra since the administration has refused a lawful congressional subpoena.

Based on historical facts, your implication that it was all the Republicans would be false. That graph shows that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans, and that the greatest year over year increases occurred while the Democrats were in control.

My point is that I was able to obtain an education from a prominent university without accepting any form of federal subsidization, particularly with respect to college loans. I did it by working very hard. Since your position is founded on the fallacy that you could not be where you are now without a government subsidized loan, I simply provided a counterexample to your entire argument by recounting my story.

I worked full time to pay for my college education; I did not receive a cent of aid or funding or loans outside the standard in-state tuition that is available to all. I am not certain of what "privilege" that you are acrimoniously referring to. I was afforded the privilege of working to pay my own way and earning my current level of success without the assistance of the federal government. I invested in myself and the return on my investment has been significant. I am glad that your education has enabled you to become such an example of astute and open minded dialog as your reply to my post clearly illustrates.

Please remember that those tax dollars were taken by force from people who worked very hard to earn them. Government can not create wealth, the only thing government can do is distribute the wealth of others. It would be better that the money was not taken from the original earner in the first place.

Mostly because he would probably end our ongoing attempts at maintaining an overseas empire. His history of opposition to offensive warfare is pretty well documented. As are his positions on military spending.