The F-22 is American only. It is by far the top air superiority fighter in the world on paper, although, it is too new to have been challenged by anyone or prove itself in combat. However, one did sneak up on some Iranian fighters unnoticed and send them scurrying home (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/). The F-22 is complete and operational as an air superiority fighter. A ground attack version is either on the way or functional.

The F-35 is a multinational effort. It is meant to come in various configurations and provide a variety of roles. It is meant to replace the F-18 for the Navy (aircraft carrier landing, air superiority/attack), the F-15 for the Air Force (air superiority, ground attack), and the Harrier for the Marine Core (vertical take off and landing, ground support). It is over budget and non-operational.

Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.

When you pay your plumber, it's income to the plumber and he has to pay taxes on it. Inheritance is not income. See my farm example above.

Personally, I want to see all taxes go and be replaced by a sales tax. Everyone is taxed, but only on what they spend. All money is spent.

So you are saying if someone should happen to get lucky that the state should take it away from them because it's not you?

It's not only the super rich that inherit things. Farms that have been in families for generations are being sold off to pay the taxes when the farmer tries to pass it to his children. These farms may have millions of dollars in the equipment alone so the state sees these kids as inheriting millions of dollars. These are not "lottery" winners. These are people that have worked a farm their entire lives only to have it ripped from their hands because of class-envy assholes like you think they are getting away with something. How 'bout trying to mind your own damn business for a change.

We can assume they paid their taxes when they received their paychecks. Why should their heirs pay them again?

In this case, this life insurance policy isn't to stop anyone from paying taxes. The purpose is to pay the taxes rather than having all the assets sold off to pay them. For example, if I were to leave a taco hut family business to my kids, if they can't scrape up the cash to pay the taxes on what the state guesses the hut is worth, they would be forced to sell it to pay 45% tax, thus losing the business me and my family spent a lifetime building. A life insurance policy would allow them to pay the taxes in cash and keep the business. Unfortunately, this may not be an option for those who do not have "extra" income to afford an life insurance policy.

Speaking of incomplete, I notice your post has no calculations whatsoever. Don't just sit there and say, "You're wrong!" Tell me why I'm wrong and provide whatever it is you think I'm missing.

_It is true pipelines would transport oil using less carbon emissions compared to rail transport. But they also reduce transportation costs, thus allow more oil to be used and allow oil to undercut renewable sources of energy. So it makes sense to oppose the pipelines._

No. No it doesn't. You are intentionally trying to make oil more painful so people won't use it. This only makes sense when there are viable alternatives. Sorry, but wind and solar won't get the oranges from the groves in Florida to markets in Maine. All you are doing is making everything more expensive needlessly, benefiting the Chinese worker, punishing the American worker, and again, you are increasing the amount of CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere.

Somehow, this doesn't seem very smart.

_ Any single rail accident would spill far less oil than a spill or break in the oil pipeline._
Are you sure about that? Remember, that we are not just talking about rail, but also tankers that will take the oil across the ocean to China. Then, of course, the Chinese will refine it, using God knows what kind of environmental safeguards. Once it is refined, it will be loaded back into a tanker or pumped through Chinese pipelines. Still think this is a better idea than a single pipeline to US regulated refineries?

_And these accidents would create enough pressure to make the rail transport of oil safer._
But pipeline accidents won't create pressure to make pipelines safer?

There is about 100,000 miles of oil carrying pipeline in the US. If they ran a story every time one went 5 years without incident, there would no time to write about anything else.

Not just Obama, but the by anti-oil people. They think by blocking the pipeline, they will be reducing CO2 in our atmosphere. The sad part is, they are actually INCREASING the amount of CO2 and other pollutants.

Rather than move the oil from Canada to Texas via an electric powered pipeline, they are forcing the oil to be loaded onto trains, where they are transported to a port where they are loaded onto an oil tanker where they will be transported to China. All of these modes of transportation are diesel powered. Once in China, they will be refined by Chinese workers under Chinese environmental regulations into various petroleum products. Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.

Or, we could transport the oil to Texas refineries, where we have control over the emissions the refineries emit, by a pipeline using electrical pumps.

Tell me which option makes more environmental sense (not to mention the economic sense!)

Every town has traffic problems at 5:00pm. I've experience the traffic in Austin, Houston, San Antonio. Dallas, Chicago, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), Louisville (KY), New York, Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit and several other places around the country. Austin traffic is not bad at all.

Slippery slope fallacy. No one is saying the religious institutions don't have to provide insurance coverage. They are saying that they should not have to pay for services that violate their religion.

Why should you have the right to force your boss to violate his beliefs? No one is forcing you to work for a religious boss.

Because the average healthcare consumer doesn't really have any choice, putting all the power in the hands of corporations.

The customer is the employer that is paying for the coverage. They have lost choice by this law. Again, I have no problem with the insurance companies being forced to offer a particular coverage. I think that is a great idea. I have a problem with the customer being forced to buy it.

A lot of people neither want nor need public schools, they pay for them anyway.
This is a local issue, not a federal one. Schools are paid for by local and state taxes.

I believe that happened. And now the corporations are bitching.
No, the customers are bitching because they are being forced to pay for services that violate their religion.

It isn't a religious thing explicitly - it's a cynical "conservative" ploy to attack and undermine the ACA by using religion as a means to cut out parts of coverage. Note, of course, that this all simply means that these services are covered and must be paid for if utilized, this attack on the ACA is about pushing to make sure it's not available at all.
Yes, in this particular case, this is a religions thing. And again, I have no problem with the patient paying for contraceptive coverage, if they so choose. I have a problem with both the patient and the employer paying for coverage even if they do not want it.
You are basically saying that the government decides what coverage needs to be provided and not the people.

No, they are forcing the customer to pay for services they don't need. The employee is not the customer. The company paying for the insurance is. If the employee wanted to forgo the insurance plan offered by the employer and pay for their own, contraceptive providing coverage, there is nothing the employer could say about it.

No one is saying that believers are "above the law". What we are saying is that the ACA is not above the law.. The law I'm speaking of is this one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By forcing "believers" to provide something they oppose, Congress is "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion. I don't understand why people find this confusing. The same law that allows "believers" to practice their religion is the same law that prevents government from forcing you to be a believer. If you start making exceptions to that law, you are paving the way for other laws (rights) to be violated in the same way in the future.

So health insurance should not cover pre-natal care for pregnant women? Colonoscopies for middle-aged men?

Of course health insurance should cover prenatal care for pregnant women. That's not the argument. That's called a "straw man".

Should it cover prenatal care for pregnant men? It does and that's why it's stupid.

In other words, there are no standards and no concept of consumer protection. Corporations are just free to run roughshod over you. This could be your fundie employer or your crass insurance company that has an obvious conflict of interest.

Since when is consumer choice allowing corporations "to run roughshod over you"? So, in order to fix your non-existing problem, you are forcing people to pay for something they neither want nor need. In essence, in order to prevent corporations from running "roughshod over you", you are allowing government to run "roughshod over you". Wouldn't it have made more sense to pass a law that says insurance companies must offer contraceptive coverage to the customers that want it? That way, you protect the consumer while still preserving their freedom of choice.

Rather than considering to a religious thing, think of it from a liberal point of view; you are forcing gay men to pay for contraception and maternity coverage that they obviously don't need.