That is why I've said from the beginning that, if only for PR purposes, the US is most likely working the hardest to KEEP HIM ALIVE.

Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad HIMSELF could walk up and knife Snowden, and it would be blamed entirely on the US.

but isn't this why we have living wills?

Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.

I'd agree with everything you wrote, but my question is: Shouldn't we always consider the charger-power in the 'cost' considerations for the vehicle?

I mean if the tesla takes X power, and the charger takes 10% of that, then the system takes 1.1X of power - because most certainly energy needed to heat the batteries is not peripheral to the operation of the car, no?

Except that nearly every step since then by the populists has been to push it toward a pure democracy (witness the pressure to remove the electoral system), generally to little good.

I mean, it's not like the President lacked any management experience, right?

Seriously, though, I think people who have never done it believe that running an organization is easy. Being a GOOD manager, or a GOOD CEO can be hellishly hard work where everything is done through innumerable proxies yet are ultimately your responsibility.

It is not a partisan statement to say that the world's only superpower shouldn't be run/led by some dumbass community organizer with no management experience. The result is a partisan comment, unavoidably, but the simple fact shorn of context is undeniable.

That's idiotic.
If companies could really get away with paying women less than men, WHY ARE ANY MEN EVER EMPLOYED?

Seriously, you can't assert that companies are both
1) soulless money machines interested in NOTHING more than profit no matter what the consequence, AND
2) chummy old-boy clubs where they'll cheerfully pay 20-50% more because a worker happens to have testes.

The concept's completely nonsensical...but then you're probably a woman, logic isn't your strong suit.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(That was a joke by the way, you humorless bitch.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(So was that.)

...is the fact that there is clearly nobody - Democrat or Republican - who is competent enough to play a serious game of brinksmanship WITHIN our government without fucking it up. I can't imagine that they're going to be any more competent with the Chinese, and the consequences here are far more serious than the US budget for the year or Obamacare.

Seriously: did The Onion write this?

aka:
"Studying the Kardashians to understand humility" or "Studying Congress to understand bipartisan cooperation and fiscal prudence"

Really?

The politically-correct bullshit has to stop - do people REALLY believe there's a concerted effort to keep women out of coding? It must be so, because that's the only situation in which this sort of thing would matter.

What you've just told CS instructors is to MAKE SURE every last woman in their course passes, and there's a financial reward for it.

Why does it matter what chromosomes your coder bears?

Here's a tip: you come off as far more reasonable and less of a tinfoil-hat whacko if you even moderately edit your post to correct gross an obvious misspellings, unfinished sentences/thoughts, etc.

As it is, this post seems so frenzied it's hard to take seriously.

OK I'll bite:
1) the first example: I'd cheerfully point to the current president and his punch-board mother as a great negative example. He both got his student-aid based on a lie, and was handed political opportunities based on his delightfully appealing-to-liberals coffee-colored skin (black enough to assuage white guilt, but not "scary black") and ability to deliver a speech. Do you think he'd be president if he was white? He was handed everything else in life, the fact that escalator took him all the way to the presidency is more a comment on political correctness and the dysfunction of society, than the confirmation it's "working as intended".

2) John Carmack, Steve Jobs, even Ashton Kutcher: remember, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT enforcing a 'fairness regime' to help these poor devils who've made bad choices. Your examples are perfect: how many of them needed the government running interference for them so that they could succeed? Perhaps my earlier post wasn't clear: People MAKE mistakes, that's human. By god I'm a clear example of that. But nobody learns from a cost-free error, and the examples you gave are perfect choices to show that one can fight free of ones' choices and succeed.

Obviously, it's not the first-step remedy, but yes, completely. Oh I wouldn't put them in COMBAT (our military has too ably proved that draftees are nearly worthless compared to motivated volunteers) but they can do lots of other shitty tasks that need lots of strong backs.

I want to be clear where I come from on this, and it's a little convoluted, but it comes from my position on abortion: I *don't* believe it's just a "woman's right to choose" - that's bullshit feminist propaganda. There are TWO people involved in the creation of a baby, and thus two people need to have a say.

BUT as long as men are irresponsible scum* and shirk their absolute moral and ethical responsibility (because they CAN walk away, she cannot), then the choice DOES fall practically on women's shoulders. So the consequences of impregnating-and-walking-away need to consistently be worse than sticking around.

*and please don't give me the 'condom breaks' or 'she said she was on the pill' nonsense: if you can't/don't trust her, maybe you shouldn't be using her as a masturbatory tool? Because at that point, that's all she is, right?

The funniest part of this post?

The "anonymous" bit.

ROFLMAO.

-The NSA.

Really? Because contrary to current dogma, the bulk of human history has had "haves" and "have nots" - and the disparity between the two has been STAGGERING.

The fact is that neo-socialists (and people who derive political power from such positions - let's not forget the original mission of the AFL-CIO quoted in the OP) have as just an illusionary utopianist view of "what society should be" with as much rationale as do the Tea-Partiers.

The fact is that some people are capable, some aren't.
Take a mythical cross-section community of the population, say 100 people, give them all $50,000.
At the end of a year, there's going to be a bell curve of results.
A small proportion are going to hold most of the money.
The bulk middle of the population, the majority, will have more or less held onto theirs.
A small proportion will have blown it all and have nothing.
Witness: the bulk of lottery winners are eventually poorer than when they started. This is PROOF that simply throwing money at poor people is truly a stupid idea - it doesn't help.

You cannot legislate away people's inherently bad choices, and I would argue it's IMMORAL* to do so. The US has, in my view, a larger and more visible poor underclass because there are indeed fewer protections against peoples' bad decisions. I agree there is a need for a social safety net to help the unfortunate - that's what a society does. But ultimately, people need to face the consequences of their own bad choices or someone else will have to bear that cost.

Had a baby at 14? You're an idiot, and get to work in a crappy minimum-skill job forever. Fathered that baby? You NEED to be responsible for the financial well-being of that mother and child until the kids' 18, or the state should drag that value out of you in a workhouse or penal battalion. Committed a crime? You're a selfish idiot who gets to work in low-wage jobs because you've proven you don't have fundamental self control that most people are able to display.

I believe second-chances are earned; nobody's entitled to them.

*this will of course only make sense to people who treat every human equally; much is made of people 'dehumanizing' the poor, but in my experience there is an equal segment of the population who don't consider the wealthy worthy of any sort of moral consideration, solely because of their wealth.