I see a lot of unecessary conflict between Ron Paul types and some of the progressive Kucinich types (though not between those two themselves, just some of their supporters) that is every bit as much our fault as theirs. We need to make the point, and all too often fail to make the point, that the 'Top Earners' are not the wealthiest people. These are two entirely different groups. You have people with high incomes who have very little accumulated wealth, and people with great wealth who only arrange an income to keep up appearances or fill their otherwise idle time. Very different groups.

The people with great wealth tend to be well represented in the legislature and never wind up paying much tax to begin with - they have small armies of lawyers and accountants that safeguard their wealth. Some of the people with high incomes do as well, and wind up reporting much smaller incomes than they truly receiving via income tax loopholes. Only the unconnected high income earner actually gets hit with high income tax. They are few in number and even with punitive taxation rates (i.e. >100%) you simply cant generate the revenue the modern state requires on such a narrow base.

So it is done on the backs of the far more numerous middle-class. Through direct taxes and indirect taxes and monetary inflation. And the only politically viable route to ease the burden on them is to reduce spending.

Every individual response to a drug is individual, yes, so it's entirely possible that for you personally there is a benefit. But for the larger population - not so much. The typical Vyanse patient (according to a doctor friend who was ranting about this subject recently) is an adderall patient who was happy with adderall until it got too hard to find. For those patients, Vyanse adds absolutely nothing. Perhaps my language could have been slightly less strenuous, but I have no doubt the basic gist of it is correct. At least for most patients, there is no advantage other than availability in the more expensive, still patented drug.

Vyvanse offers nothing over adderall to the patient. It has the same affects, good and bad, and is prescribed for the same symptoms. The only difference is that it has a slightly different formula which gives a new patent and results in much higher prices for the drug company.

I dont today but the fine gentleman above deserves a +5 insightful.

I went back to 3.6 too. It's starting to nag me to 'upgrade' quite often. I guess I am going to have to start investigating forks. Mozilla has always had problems but this is full retard.

The Fountainhead and Atlas have good points, but I have to deduct points for ultimately being long-winded and pretentious. We the Living, and Anthem as well, avoid those faults and make much better reading for it.

That's a hard case to make.

It's really not.

In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine.

Hamas, like the Mullahs, must pray everyday in thanks for the inept moves of the US and Israel that keep bolstering their popularity. I am not asking you to like them, just to manage to think through the reality of the system in terms more complicated than those of a comic-book morality tale.

Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to terrorism how, exactly? Are you just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick?

A few years ago when the Irish were still blowing each other up over religion one might have made a similar statements about Catholics and Protestants, or religious people in general. Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them. Only when the underlying reasons for the violence are addressed does it tend to get better - quite independent of the rise or fall of religion.

FFS quit coming back here and telling me I'm wrong open up Black's Law and read it yourself.

Nonetheless "An individual is "under arrest" when a reasonable person in the subject's shoes would feel like they were not free to leave under the circumstances." this is good precedent and reflects a court unwilling to let a simple word game convert a prohibited action into an immunised one.

The Constitutional prohibition clearly did not intend to split that hair and make it legal to do all the things it makes it illegal to do by 'arrest' through the simple semantic expedient of 'detaining' instead. If you think I ever said that go back and reread cause I didnt. The clear intent was to immunise CongressCritters in their travels, and the idea that the more limited power of detention could be used to pierce that immunity when the stronger power of arrest cannot is farcical on its face.

Contrary to what you may have heard, the "Federal" Reserve is not one of the Branches of Government.

In fact, these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world, and both Kaczynski and McVeigh were seen by some in the western world as somewhat sympathetic in either philosophy or grievances, if still utterly irredeemable in their tactics - which is how large parts of the muslim world seem to view AQ. So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum a more accurate appraisal would seem to be that they are, indeed, somewhat comparable.

Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me, and I would characterise it as hate speech. I do still defend your right to say it, along with my right to condemn it. But it's exactly the sort of thing that a person really should be shamed for even thinking let alone speaking in public. That's the sort of thinking that makes Hell on Earth.