This is not about politics. I would say the same thing no matter who is in office. Being trusted with privileged access or information comes with restrictions. If you do not want those privileges, and the restrictions that come with them, then exercise your freedom of speech without privileged access.

Reporters had an unnecessary amount of access inside the Pentagon, one of the most information-sensitive environments in the world. Unescorted movement through the building, casual hallway conversations, exposure to things most people never see. That kind of access is a security risk to all parties, including the American people and the journalists.

The Pentagon tightening security protocols and access makes sense. Reporters who want that access now have to sign an agreement that clearly explains the rules in exchange for privileged access. That is not censorship or an attack on free speech. That is how privileged access works in any secure setting.

Journalists make choices like this all the time. They sign embargoes to review unreleased tech or books, choosing to agree or disagree to terms in exchange for early access. The consequences for breaking those agreements are clear, and in some cases can include serious financial penalties for leaking a hot tech exclusive.

It makes sense for news agencies to not sign the agreement and not have their reporters in the hallways in the pentagon. This way they are free to do whatever investigative reporting they want âoefrom the outsideâ. It doesnâ(TM)t make sense to allow moles walking around that that could compromise security. When I worked in a highly sensitive environment that involved sensitive information I was bound by law what I could and could not say. And this is for good reason. Just because someone gets a press pass doesnâ(TM)t mean they should get privileges behind closed doors and able to leak whatever they find. That doesnâ(TM)t make sense. If I were in the press, do not sign the agreement, and get out of the pentagon, and do your own investigative reporting finding your own sources and whistleblowers and expose whatever you find, being a real âoejournalistâ.

The U.S. existed longer without a federal income tax (137 years) than with it (112 years), but the gap is closing.

Before the federal income tax, the government primarily raised revenue through tariffs, excise taxes, and land sales:
        1. Tariffs (Import Duties) â" The federal government relied heavily on tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods. These were a major source of revenue throughout the 19th century and helped protect domestic industries.
        2. Excise Taxes â" These are taxes on specific goods, such as whiskey, tobacco, and other commodities. The infamous Whiskey Tax (1791) led to the Whiskey Rebellion, showing how unpopular direct taxation could be.
        3. Land Sales â" The U.S. government sold large amounts of federal land, particularly as it expanded westward. This provided a steady income, especially during the early 19th century.

These methods worked when the federal government was smaller, but as government responsibilities grew, tariffs and excise taxes became insufficient. This led to the push for a permanent income tax, which was finally established in 1913 with the 16th Amendment.

If the government shrinks we could keep more of the money we make, and not need so much âoehelpâ from the government. If there are local issues in each of our states we want solved, people can start charities or non-profits and donate their own money to them to fund those things on their own. Government does the worst job of actually solving any problem. No accountability, no sense of budget, full of fraud and waste, no incentive to solve the actual problem.

Good point. But the government health department should not be putting fruit loops as healthier options for breakfast over eggs. They have this level of corruption because the âoehealth departmentâ has lobbyists that want their foods to be able to be sold in the schools around the country and there is a requirement prohibiting unhealthy foods to be sold at schools marketed directly to children. The law has good intentions, but then corruption bends to the lobbyist, manipulating and morphing the system to help those with the most money, and not those that the law was initially intended to help.

Recent studies indicate that approximately 77% of young Americans are ineligible for military service, with obesity being a leading disqualifier. Who are we going to have defend us if our political leaders get us into world war 3? Also as people are more obese they have shorter lifespans, quality of life issues not able to participate in activities they might want to, depression, amongst many other issues. All of these things compound. Maybe you don't care, but the solution is actually quite simple to put different food in their mouths, but the resistance is deep.

Why do we care? The more obese we are as a society there are huge implications. Shorter life spans, health care costs increase, more susceptible to disease like Covid that basically targeted overweight people. People freak out that government is going to take away social security or Medicare, but if our population lifespan changes, or people can't work and on living off the government pay checks, then guess what happens to social security and Medicare?

People are not actually eating whatever they want. People are eating what's around them, what's readily available, or what "feels good" like a drug. To eat Doritos, people aren't growing potatoes in their gardens, preparing them, and slicing them up, baking or deep frying them, coating them with flavoring just to eat them. If they were going to go through all that hassle they probably would just make something else and it would be significantly more healthy.

Simple tweaks to our diet can be profound. I've seen it first hand. Eating different foods I lost a lot of weight. Working out helped some, but until I changed my diet my body was still obese.

100%. The left wing of the democrats have been praising these riots. Look up quotes from Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, and others. Educate yourself. If you canâ(TM)t identify an actual policy of Trumps that you hate, other than repeating opinion then you too have been brainwashed. I can recite hundreds of policies of trumps that I align with, and hundreds of policies of Bidenâ(TM)s agenda that I disagree with. The media doesnâ(TM)t want us to have a conversation about policy. They want us divided and talking about how Trump is worse than hitler but they wonâ(TM)t explain how Trump is worse than a murderer who attacked the Jews and destroyed large portions of Europe starting world war 2. Let me think, which president was it that was in office when Ukraine got attacked? What about Israel? What about China sabotaging and harassing our forces in the sea? Who gave billions to Iran to help them fund their resurgence in the mid east? Was that Trump? No. The world was unsure of how trump would respond to these types of tactics. With Biden, they know exactly what he would do, so they take advantage of weakness.

I was being sarcastic and trying to point out that they were democrats.

True. Did you see all the Trump supporting organized extremists that took over the universities for the past 10 days blocking Jews from going to class and chanting that they wanted to kill Jews?

No, there is no debt cancellation. It was paid by tax payers. The colleges got their money already from the government when the person got accepted into college and signed the paperwork for the loan. The loan repayment program is supposed to bring money back into the program to pay for loans for others to go to college.

Have you ever researched these college Endowments? Harvard has over $50 BILLION endowment.

This supposed debt cancellation does not solve anything. It helps colleges hike their tuition up even more, lower their standards of who they accept into programs knowing they will still be paid in full even if the person drops out or has a degree that doesnâ(TM)t help the individual get a job that pays enough to allow the individual to make enough money to pay the loan.

I would fully support this if Biden negotiated with the colleges to refund the money back to the government for individuals who file for a hardship and unable to pay their loan.

Look at these college endowments, the whole system is insanely upside down. The government should be completely removed from the student loan to these institutions The government should focus on community colleges, building up graduate programs and degrees that actually benefit society.

Any college with a multimillion dollar endowment should repay the tuition money back to the government for those that canâ(TM)t afford their payments. Keep in mind institutions on this list have endowments in the billions, not millions.
https://www.usnews.com/educati...

How does any of this help anybody except for the people that currently have debt? How does this help future generations? How does this help my daughter that is 16 who wants to go to college in the future?

This effort to cancel student debt short term scam to buy votes. It doesnâ(TM)t solve anything except for some relief of a specific voting population. It is not a sustainable solution. Nor does it actually enhance the education of the citizens of the United States.

Ever since Oboma passed the healthcare and reconciliation act of 2010, ALL student loans now have to go through the government. And ever since then tuition has sky rocketed, due to several factors but a primary reason is due to the backing of the loan from the government. This causes institutions to be more open to higher prices and less concern of accepting individuals that dont qualify for their program and will probably drop out or not get a job with the degree.

If the government wanted to actually solve something the government should:

1. hold the institutions liable for individuals that can not pay for their degree making the institution repay the loan back to the government.

2. Enhance the local community colleges to offer graduate programs to compete with the ivy leagues. Community colleges are quite affordable.

I figured out the math on this, it doesn't pan out to charge an EV with a gas generator.

To fully charge a Tesla Model S (100 kWh battery) using a diesel generator, you would require approximately 40 gallons of diesel. The total cost for this, given a diesel price of $3.50 per gallon, would be $140.00 USD.

DANG! That's not efficient at all.

Oh my gosh, how hilarious would that be? That would be the best environmental climate agenda troll ever! All these people with EVs in apartments end up buying diesel fuel generators to charge their EVs. I mean, that's not actually that bad of an idea.

Is it possible that enough windmills extracting energy from the wind may impact the jetstreams, gulf streams, weather, and/or global climate?

I haven't seen any articles or discussions on this topic, but it would seem that an exchange of energy would cause an impact, even if small. But over time, much like the "butterfly effect", couldn't this man-made subtle global impact cause other potential challenges?

I've seen recent articles discussing potential recent changes to the gulf stream which some speculate could cause climate catastrophe.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

As I mentioned earlier, I haven't seen anyone discussing this, but as with the laws of thermal dynamics, energy isn't free. You take energy from one area, and it will impact another area.

I just don't understand why we don't invest into more research to come up with a distributed, self-contained, nuclear solution. Either something per household, or something big enough to power a square mile neighborhood, but small enough to be able to security it and contain it from potential environmental impacts (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, sabotage). For example, in the event of a natural disaster or tampering, have a failsafe of granular carbonate materials like calcite and dolomite surrounding the core of a nuclear reactor which would drop into the core to prevent any meltdown scenario and have the unit built in a concreate & lead container to prevent leaking of radiation.

https://physicsworld.com/a/how...

I was thinking the exact same thing. I am starting to question the comments on this site. I find it hard to believe that logical thinkers could be so mono-toned and not even curious enough to question information presented by the media.

Do people seriously believe all the propaganda presented by the media? If you canâ(TM)t recognize the political bias in who you are getting your information from then you are the problem.

If you know the person talking is sympathetic to a particular cause then you have to take what they are saying as propaganda. If you take what they say as fact, and know they have an agenda, then you are the idiot.

Itâ(TM)s sad that news media has turned into political propaganda. When watching MSNBC and CNN, all the hosts are democrats. They all believe the same ideas, they all want democrats to win elections. Any republican that is allowed on their shows are ones that agree with their ideas, they never bring on actual opposition.

When watching Fox News, they actually have democrats on the shows who will disagree with the others on the show and present the other part of the discussion. Sure, most of them on the show are republican. But again, if I can recognize an individualâ(TM)s political bias then I take what they are saying, knowing that they are spewing political propaganda, and will go do my own research for what is fact.

Anybody that says Joe Biden, Trump or any other politician has done nothing wrong in their entire lives is an idiot. Theyâ(TM)re all corrupt. I wish everyone would think for themselves instead of rooting for a particular political party like itâ(TM)s a religion like the way people root for their favorite sports team even when all the players, owners, and organization changes or even moves to another state, theyâ(TM)re still committed to support that sports team even if they suck.

Stop treating politics like sports. Anybody who doesnâ(TM)t know that the democrats were once the slave owners and started the civil war is an idiot. Anybody who doesnâ(TM)t know that republicans were the party supporting foreign wars for years is an idiot.

Political parties change agendas to remain in power. Why individuals are so committed to support the upper class elites being elected over and over and over again, believing their propaganda to be re-elected over and over again makes no sense to me.

Open your eyes everybody, pay attention to the bias of the media, stop being played by the biased news and have your own thoughts. Seriously.

You are blinded by your devotion to political party. I personally have no devotion to any particular party. We âoeas a nationâ should be focused on policies not parties.

Yes, this article talks about the UK but the same problems are occurring here in the states. Being that the US is the largest global economy when inflation runs wild in the US there will be global impact as well.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/0...