How about you just teach your child what bus to get on. Or pick your child up from school. In 20 years are you going to want your child to think it is ok to track a person? Will your child be one of the ones that says "Well my parents tracked me as a child and I was fine, so lets let the government track us". The buses have numbers written on them just teach your child what number theirs. Once you advocate tracking people as a valid solution to a problem everyone is doing it.

Ok so someone defaced a website used by the US Army. How do we know that the website is not hosted by a 3rd party provider? Also how are we sure that sensitive information and the website are on the same network? Also the army may not have codded the website so it could have just been piss poor coding by a 3rd party web developer and not the contractor who codes the programs that control the sensitive information.

In other words just because the front end website for the Army got defaced that means nothing. It is like defacing the IRS website. It means nothing till you have peoples tax returns being rerouted to your personal bank account.

Aww, do I have a fan? :)

Either way I posted a link to a study that was done saying that fat people cost less because they die early. Also how does my comment and example have nothing to do with the topic at hand? NY is thinking about taxing people who eat fast food, play video games, watch TV, etc. I posted a comment talking about what right does the government have to tell me what to do in regards to my weight. People think being fat is bad so NY is taxing them and I am simply saying that being fat is not bad because it cost the system less in the long run. So in a nutshell pull the stick out of your ass.

What happened to freewill, and just plain life?

Think about this for a second.

A single mother working 2-3 part-time jobs or maybe a full time job and a part-time cashier job at Wall-mart from 5pm-10pm every night to make ends meet. She picks her kids up from school everyday and rather then cooking a meal at home. She picks up fast food because:

1. It cost less
2. She does not have time to cook dinner
3. Fast food provides a variety, chicken nuggets for the kids and a salad for her

Now she is going to be taxed more. So she now has to make a choice to have less income due to taxes or have less income because rather then working at Wall-Mart from 5pm-10pm she now comes in to work at 5:30pm to 10pm, assuming her boss will offer her that schedule.

I think some people eat fast food out of necessity and others eat fast food out of stupidity both are valid reasons.

The stupid person who eats it because they like it and they are just too lazy to cook healthy food has a right as a person to eat what they want. The government has no right to tell people what they can and can not eat.

Yes, and airplanes, trains, cab rides, city buses, and schools. Especially schools because a child spends 7:45-3:45 in school. They sit at lunch and eat, they sit in the room for 6 hours a day!

Yep and the Atkins diet guy died of a heart attack.

What happened to free will and free choice? If sitting on your ass watching TV, drinking cokes makes you fat who cares. Why should the government have the right to tell someone they need to not do/consume certain things via a tax.

Someone could argue that fat people cost more in medical expenses and because of this they cause the cost of medical procedures to rise. This may be true. However, if someone is over weight they have a higher chance of death via heart attack, or diabetes. Healthy people end up living longer, and costing more money. So what is the problem with someone being fat? In the long run they cost less.

On the other hand could fit people also cause medical expenses to rise? Running is bad for your knees you could twist a knee or ankle in basketball or baseball. You could get a concussion in football or loose tooth in hockey.

So being both health or fat increase the cost of insurance and medical expenses on a whole, so why just target fat people? Is this just a political/social vendetta against over weight people?

With the name Red Flayer and a comment like that...just stay where you are the feds are on the way.

Yes but lets assume you run to the window of your office. You see a 747 with 2 f-16's behind it. Now can you tell me how long those two f-16's have been behind that jet? No you can't because you just got to the window. So now you are left to think "They are now over a city, will they shoot it down over a city?". So now everyone is left to wonder what to governments "plans" are when it comes to a low flying aircraft followed by fighter gets. Will the government give the fighters the green light to shoot down a plane over a city? I am sure most people figured the Bush administration would. But would the Obama administration? Has Obama said what he would or would not do on the subject?

So you are left with a plane flying low followed by fighter jets and your not sure if they are authorized to shoot down a plane or not. Do you think think it would just be a little bit safer to get out of your building just in case? Who knows just because it was Air Force One does not mean they could not hit a building by mistake.

Think of it as a hurricane warning. You know a hurricane is coming and your think says do not fearmonger and stay where you are. However other peoples thinking says "Hey lets go out of here just in case". Both are acceptable ways to think about the situation neither is right nor wrong. A choice is only wrong after your have all of the facts.

Also if TFA said "747 followed by two F-16's flew low over NYC. People evacuated buildings as a precaution." I do not think you would bring up your fearmongering comment. However, you know that it was a photo opt. They did not.

Oh yes just fearmongering...

flown by a 15-year-old student pilot who took off minutes earlier without permission from St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport.

So after 9/11 a random plane flew into a building. And this plane took off without permission.

Just because you do not think a terrorist will takeover a plane and crash it does not mean you do not have a drunk pilot or a suicidal pilot or maybe a disabled plane. You also have to take into account that 9/11 happened in New York.

If Obama did learn something between then and now. Do you think if people take this course of action and still stand behind Obama on this issue. That perhaps people also owe Bush an appalogy in regards to the wiretapping?

I mean if people say it is ok for Obama to brush the wiretapping stuff under the rug then maybe Obama found out the true reason why Bush was doing it and agrees with it? If that is the case I think people need to make a choice. They either support Bush and Obama on this matter or they hate the both on this matter.

There is no difference between a metropolitan area newspaper and a small town newspaper except for more stories and more readers. If your subscription base can not pay for your production (reporters, rent, printing, etc) then you need to cut back on services or go under. If a big city newspaper is going down, and it is because readers are going online for their news, then how do you explain the small town newspaper going down also? Could it not be for the same reason? The small town newspapers are loosing readers because of the internet also? So the question is why are small town newspapers loosing money? Because you say 40%+ of the non metropolitan readers will loose their newspaper but since they need their paper you would think they could pay for it via subscriptions so it would stay in business.

Why should my tax dollars support a failing business? I understand with banks, airlines, and in some respect the big 3 if they go under a lot of people and businesses are going to be hurting. However with a newspaper especially a local newspaper it is essentially a small business with around 500+ employees. The real question is why is the number of subscriptions down? Could it be that people find their news online from different sources (cnn.com, associated press, bbc, etc) rather then one local news paper? Why should the government prop up a failing business model? Did the government prop up the horse drawn carriage makers when the automobile started to take wind? It is not like people are loosing their news. The news is just going to a new medium, the internet. I do not feel it the job of the tax payer to prop up the newspapers.

Yes because California has a HUGE demand and they have power plants going up so fast.... If your statement was true California would have no shortage of power in the summer and no rolling blackouts right? Do you have any proof that in high demand for electricity environmental regulations have been lessened?

Also you are assuming that all power plants being built will be coal or oil burning. Natural Gas burns clean, Wind is clean, Solar is clean, Hydroelectric is clean, and in some respects nuclear is clean (in regards to CO2 pollution.)

By your logic Microsoft is not a monopoly either. They just had a success by producing an operating system that a large portion of the world uses. But now they are the big bad wolf. Google did it better then the other guys they marketed they produced the software people wanted at the right time. Microsoft did the same thing in the 80's and 90's.