It is the same with welfare. Companies don't have to pay a living wage when the govwrnment steps in and makes up the difference. It is the only reason that the minimum wage is a topic today. Instead of being a starting wage to work up from, its a career path for some because companies have no care about their employees leaving for greener pastures.

Of course the responsible answer to the career minimum wage issue is to create more jobs and have an extremely low unemployment. Companies would be forced to pay more and take caee of their employees if another job was waiting for them. But it seems the path our politicians want to take might do the opposite. But hey, at least there is welfare.

It really depends on why the people are revolting. I know quite a few service members and most of them would side with the civilians if they considered the reasons to be legit.

On the other hand, if the reasons don't convince them its proper, they would consider it as a terrorist attack and follow orders. Its sort of the same reasoning that leads to the excessive force you mentioned.

So i guess if an armed revolt ever happened, they better have spent some time getting their message out first and guage public support. My guess is if there is enough support, the armed part might not be needed.

I'm curious. What exactly is the point of your comment?

  I mean, you picked something the federal government has always been entrusted in under the constitution and call it a socialist program then feign outrage. Obviously i am lost on the reasoning for this so could you explain it for me?

What does 90% of the reprrdentatives being millionares have to do with anything? I would prefere someone who can ballance a check book and earn more than minimum wage representing my interests in government.

Also, roads and bridges generally are not what people mean when they bitch about wealth redistribution. Its the perpetual welfare state and things like the earned income tax credit that rewards people for not making a lot of money by pretending they did only to give refunds in excess of taxes paid in while soaking others who are punished for being somewhat successfull with higher taxes.

I only read part of your post but i think something needs pointed out.

The constitution has built with inself several processes to amend it. The founders, while they likely did not foresee things like lobyist, they did foresee the fact that they could not foresee eveeything. The follow the constitution crowd is generally fine with amendments as it follows the constitution. The problem we have is when it gets ignored because it doesn't fit someone's ideology with excuses like its old or they never could foresee this.

Of course it isn't exactly easy to amend the constitution if you don't have a plurality of the country supporting the change. And of course this was by design so the country wasn't subject to the latest fad at the whims of a few like was the case under a king.

And of course it's in the U.S. interest to make sure the Russians have an active and completely up-to-date source of rocket engines for their nuclear missles.

In this vein, I wonder what it is we are paying the Chinese to do?

DR in this case, is "Disaster Recovery".

Look up the various tomes and processes for businesses and do the same things for yourself (minus the stupid certifications and $200K transferred to some consultant's hands) or find something specifically tailored for that

This blog web site was written by a guy that had to move his family during hurricane Katrina, and it has all sorts of processes and things to do to recover in that situation. It's old now, but you can add a modern twist. (I'd recommend an encrypted hard drive at a friend or relative's place as a backup.)

Here is the link: http://www.theplacewithnoname....

Warning: Disaster Recovery is a lot of dumb, boring, bullshit work that you have to keep coming back to re-do, that's why people don't do it. Not because it's not useful.

I see racism but it is from idiots that have no poweror control over anyone. Hell, most of them even voted for Obama because he was the democrat. I've even told racist jokes- because they were funny. But language alone is not a good judge of racism. You need actions or intended actions too.

I see you pointed to two people in the news recently. One who was lead on by a reporter and said some clever and some seriously stupid racist things. The other was lead on by an ex girlfriend who happens to be a minority too. In both cases though, where is the problem? I mean the bundy ordeal came as a complete shocker to many that knew him so obviously he didn't act out kb the racism. The sterling had also said many non-racist and even flatering things about the same people his rant was about. He was even being given an awarf by the local NAACP chapter. So again, where is the problem or hangup?

You are probably the closest with the democrats using all this to fire up their base though. Manufacturing fake racism problems for gain is a problem and it is created by the idiot trying to take advantage of it.

But lets look at some data points. In an area with a rash of recent burglaries, someone who isn't known in that area is likely connected to them. So was zimmerman justified in following a suspicious teen who was new to the area? Is getting pulled over for driving while black legitimate ir NYC's stop and frisk program? I don't expect you to answer that but i will. Zimmerman-following yes. The rest- no. The entire idea od data can create real racism that is founded in actions. That may be a hangup.

Yup. 91% rubbing alcohol on the pits. Trim now and then.

Dries stuff out. Kills everything. EXACTLY what I want going on in my pits. Plus, cheap as hell and won't stain clothes or cause reactions from people sensitive to scents.

Your post and point might have some validity if you actually demonstrated where the wholes are. As fpr my opening, sure- the politicians and envirpmentalist largely do not care if evil oil turns a profit. They want to limit and control you and this is by admission. Back when gas was $5 a gallon, the Siera club and a few democrats suggested taxing it that much and give credirs to the poor for approved uses. Its the same realitt with the coveted carbon tax. They want to make certain energy too expensive to use and give credits for approved uses. That is fact- not ridicule. Get over it.

I can see you are retreating to attemps at ridicul instead of addtessing the points made. Its clear that you are lost in this.

The lack of a pipeline only means increased costs. If it appears a pipeline is completely out of the question then the answer is more trucks, more rail cars, more tanker ships, and a refinery. And yes, i would mine 5 years surplus waiting for all that to come on line because it can be sold in reserve without flooding the market and dropping the price of it. Please do not act like we do not have the capacity or capabilities of building more.

I also left the part about energy cost out because i never said it would decrease energy costs. Lets be real and pretend we said things that were actually said.

As for the town burning down. You are a complete idiot if you do not see how transporting oil away from other humans is safer to society snd those that inhabit it than what we have now which has already proven to be quite devistating when things go wrong.

But thanks for not even trying. Its as if your script didn't cover reality and you got flustered or something. But i can tell you are wasting everyone's time so i will bid you farewell. Come back when you can think for yourself.

Yes, i am saying there is some racial bias in the us but it is not systemic or a major problem in any way close to what has been claimed with the sorry examples so far produced.

Mining the tar sands is happening without the pipeline. Thr only aregument you put forth that isn't already a reality is eminent domain. As for leaks, did you miss all the tanker fires or the town that burnt down from an accident while moving this oil already? That almost makes your pipeline fears a godsend if it makes large populattion areas safer.

Going from 2 to 8 percent can easily be explained by cultural shifts with areas like religion, education, or any number of things.

I think your supposed data points are suffering selection bias. Perhaps the major issue with race is more with you than the country.

I don't disagree, i was just making the point that reprehensable and unethical does not neccesarily translate to illegal. If you think that kind of behavior needs to stop, the tax code needs changed. We don't need to punish the companies, just remove the incentives for doing it. That can be with removing tax breaks or lowering taxes or a combination of those as well as other things.

And yes, lowering taxes is a viable option when it means collecting taxes hidden in offshore investments or which is alreaady being paid to foreign governments.