I'm not sure that's true. I've known too many people who were content doing absolutely nothing. They tend to be the disability types, always long on excuses and short on anything useful. Making people work for their wages makes sense. That's why I support a universal bonus income for people who work (coupled with a minimum wage to make sure that the bonus doesn't become a new way for the 0.1% to screw over the rest of us). The other half of making work people work is always having something for them to do. That's why I support the notion of work centers where people can show up and work is always available. It's the answer to the situation of telling someone to get a job when jobs aren't available.

The solution is to give extra income to people who work (as in physically show up). If you are unemployed there should be labor centers where you have to show up to get your check and that keep you busy for the day. I get that we can't have them competing with private enterprise as that would be unfair but until no charity needs volunteers, until no old folks in retirement homes are lonely, until all litter is picked up, we can keep these people busy and pay them. I'd suggest funding it with a tax on imports, with a bias against low income countries like China. This would stimulate domestic demand by putting money in the 99% instead of the 1% and it would not create a culture of laziness. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Since you didn't like others facts I'm sure that you have citations for yours right? Immigration can be a net win (let in skilled immigrants) or a net loss (let in unskilled immigrants). US has chosen a losing immigration strategy.

PC gaming used to mean that it was played on computers as opposed to consoles. Now PC gaming has taken on a whole new meaning...

The trick to making progress is that you have to actually be trying to make progress. If there's no interest in making progress the amount of time that goes by really doesn't matter.

In truth the LGBT community has more members engaging in this style of conduct than any other group I'm aware of. The most appropriate example is that they sued to get the Prop 8 donor list then started harassing all the people on it. Talk about chilling political speech. Citations are extremely numerous and easily found if you google "harassing people prop 8".

I'm in favor of people letting others have opposing views without punishment, which is the only way to have a free society. Allowing others to have ideas and opinions you don't agree with is no different than protecting speech you don't agree with.

Sad but true in some cases. The problem with not tolerating speech that you don't agree with is that it keeps a rational discussion from happening. Need an example, try this:

[Person A] We should discuss the problems of massive numbers of undocumented people crossing the borders. Possible downsides include non-vaccinated people, economic costs, crimes committed by said people, etc.

[Person B] You are obviously racist. Why do you hate hispanics, they just want opportunity.

If Person A is white then maybe they'll add comments about white privilege. Not a single point Person A said was considered, just a blanket dismissal as racist. That's the problem with "hate speech" either by government or by the "PC crowd". Not addressing reality carries more severe consequences than offending overly sensitive people who get offended by just about anything and everything.

Ouch, that's a harsh slam on Democrats

I would really love to hear what this administrations finest moment was.

Your crime was being a male. Family courts exist for the very purpose of giving really good deals to women at the expense of men. The old joke about socialism is giving other peoples money away so that you feel better has never been more true than "family courts".

How about dead. Dead sounds like a much better option than felon. Felons cost a lot of money, dead people are a sunk cost.

Really what you're getting at is that red light doesn't destroy scotopic vision (ie night adapted vision) because the rod cells respond very little to red light. Notice I said respond very little, a bright enough red light will still have an impact. Using somewhat dim red light allows you to see things yet still retain your night vision. Even a brief moment of other light colors (ie white, blue, etc) will result in losing the night adapted vision which can take up to 30 minutes to fully recover.

I dislike waste and generally try and conserve but it always seems like a scam when you save yet end up with the same bill. It's the environmental version of no child left behind where not everyone can be above average. If we all save water our bills won't all go down we'll just pay more for less. I've seen this scam multiple times with water mostly though also with electricity. Since water demand has limited elasticity I expect someone to pull an Enron on water supplies soon, especially if we get another corporate administration.

I have worked in the solid state lighting industry. You typically hear 50,000 hours but there are a few points that must be met to achieve that:: - The LED must not exceed a certain temperature (usually 135C at the die though that can vary a bit between manufacturers) - The LED must not exceed a rated level of current flow - The 50k hours rating allows for a dimming over time of ~20% though again that varies between different manufacturers The most common failure points for LEDs are heat, over driving the LEDs, poor regulation circuits resulting in over current, and using too cheap of components which fail before the full lifetime is met. A lot of claims are made regarding both brightness and longevity that don't hold up, especially if it's an off brand from China. Those will always claim 50k to 100k hours of operation at 100% (or more) of the LEDs full rated light.

That's what Eric Holder is for