Ten oz

It is Trump who criticizes his own appointees in the Justice Dept., calls legal inquiries he disagrees with "shams", brags that it is smart not to pay taxes, yet claims to be the "law and order" President, all while his supporters (conservatives) chant "lock her up" directed at Clinton and Fienstien. The Contradictions are numerous and I simply don't see any legitimate equivalency. Conservatively plainly see all regulations(business or individual) as formalities which either help or hurt their personal end goals. They do not see regulations as something which serves the public at large or as somethings which must be fairly enforced. Just take at look at what's happening with Saudi Arabia. A U.S. resident was murdered and our Republican President publicly responds by highlighting the importance of not losing out on an arms deal. Meaning Saudi Arabia has been using those arms to do things like blow up school buses full of children in Yemen. Please spare us your false equivalencies. Under Democratic leadership we simply saw nothing like what we are currently seeing.

The "majority" is disaster relief? I think you are mistaken. You sure seem to be.

You quoted Studiot's post which was a response to me. I noted the do as we say but not as we do manner in which U.S. conservatives being for regulations against individuals but against the same for corporations. Studiot referenced the way that attitude extends across the pond. The U.S. leads the world in incarcerations yet has the gall to point the finger at England about criminal justice matters. The "land of the free" remark was sarcastic. So to answer your question my post was directly inline with the context of the exchange between Studiot and myself which you jumped in on. You may want to tightly debate curfews but curfews aren't the point.

Per 100,000 people in the U.S. 737 are in prison compared to just 148 in England. What does total population size have to do with anything? India has 4x the population of the U.S. but just 80 per 100,000 in prison. The U.S. far exceeds other nations in the percentage of citizens our criminal justice system imprisons, Here. Also there doesn't appear to be any correlation internationally to population size and that percentage. In the U.S. conservatives support and encourage laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations.

The President himself during a debate in 2016 said "that makes me smart" when it was pointed out that he hasn't paid taxes in years. Taxes being civic responsibility isn't a concept which is taught or encouraged in the U.S., least not that I have ever experienced. Rather success is what's pushed. The greatest thing anyone can strive to be in the U.S. is successful. Those who cut in line, cut a corner, find a loophole, and etc for getting ahead are considered clever and ambitious is positive terms. Trade is just another item to be manipulated for advantage. I don't get the sense that people want restricted trade or the govt overly involved in trade but rather like the idea that someone is attempting to manipulate trade in a way which potentially could rig things in their favor. whether it works out or not millions seem eager to roll the dice.

The whole situation is bizarre to me. In the U.S. among Conservatives taxes and regulations are synonymous govt overreach which burdens businesses and negatively impacts employment. Yet U.S. citizens are among the most heavily policed policed in the world with the U.S. boasting the largest prison population of any nation. Within the U.S. psyche people can imagine the way food labels may or not have an appreciable impact on the hourly wage of a hand full of factory workers yet can't seem to do the same for how put someone in prison for a few years over a non-violent crime might demonstratively have a downward impact on the person's family or community. The same politicians who campaign against regulation, bureaucracy, and govt overreach also somehow get away with also campaigning on Law & Order, capital punishment, and more prisons. It is nuts. Govt regulation into the lives of individuals is championed while simultaneous ridiculed for industry. If a man dates a woman and ends up killing her capital punishment is an option, applauded by millions. It a business produces a product that a person buys and it ends up killing them lawsuits are an option but broadly viewed in negative terms and people will argue that no one is was forced to buy product. Here in the U.S. it seems fairly obvious that we value businesses more than people.

We all have type 1 (slow) and type 2 (fast) muscle fibers. In my experience type 2 is lost more quickly and as we age. While cycling and swimming are great exercise there should be a sprinting component involved to ensure type 2 muscles get work. Also I think as one ages remaining coordinate is important too. Low impact exercises don't always mimic the bodies natural mechanics in terms of the what we need to be able to do day to day. Plus higher intensity exercises recruit more motor units at once which can help with coordination and reflexes.

Right, but if they are hunting they, fail, and the Whale gets injured claiming it was just an accident while freeing the whale would provide plausible deniability. If fishermen are dift netting with an illegal length of net and a whale gets caught cutting it free without calling anyone is a good way to avoid being caught.

It is a crime to hunt or Kill a whale in the Unite States.

I am not a meteorologist. From my limited understanding of how storms form there are not singular trigger effects which take place. Rather when conditions are right (water temp, humidity, barometric pressure, etc) storms can form during those conditions. Detonating a bomb wouldn't change those conditions especially across as large an area as storms travel.

Most of what you listed appear to be state issues and not federal issues. As for the one regarding whales I would need to research the law. If there is a history of fisherman cutting the nets in a manner where by it remains attached to the whale as it swims off or a history of illegal fishing practices leading to whales getting caught in nets where by the nets were cut to hide the crime; than I might agree with the regulation.

Yep, 401k's are the better alternative. Who need a guaranteed safety net when we could give our money to wall street.

Seems Republicans have a fix for the problem, cut the safety nets.

It is a deal with devils the Western World has had half a century to figure out an exit for. Enough procrastination I say.

SCOTUS isn't the only court Republicans attempt to stack. One of the things striking about what FL's Republican Gov. is trying to do with the State Court is that fact that regardless of whether or not Democrats make the next round of nominations or not the Court will still be majority Republican. The partisan greed here is nearly comical. A majority is assured either way but Republicans still want more.

Saudi can have whomever they choose as heir to the thrown. What bothers me is my govt continuing to sell them weapons and buy their oil. Here i the U.S. we are fighting with our own allies like Canada over the distribution of milk but are tuning a total blind eye to Saudi Arabia. It is very sad. We should stop doing business with them.

In the wake of Saudi Arabia murdering columnist Jamal Khashoggi U.S. President Trump's is highlighting the $110 billion weapons purchase by the Saudi govt as a reason to tame criticism of the Saudis. Meanwhile the weapons in questions are being used to kill people in Yemen, 50,000 people and counting. Should or will any world leaders stand against Saudi Arabia?

The Bay Bridge (Eatsern span) was recently replace in Oakland, can. It was a 6.5 billion dollar project replacing 2.2 miles, Here. There were numerous logistical issues to juggle 270,000 people use the bridge everyday, there were environmental concerns, maritime concerns, and govt property issues involving Navy & Coast Guard. The state put the design of the project out to bid without the standard requirements that materials be domestic gambling than the cost savings on materials would be greater than the federal funds they would have secured using domestic materials. Ultimately the bids came in and blew away estimates several times over. The project was green lit and due to be completed in 2007. It wasn't completed till 2013. There were Numerous cost over runs and the plans had to be altered a few times. Like you said every project will require a different solution. The Bay Bridge is different than a 30 foot bridge. I think CA should have priorities using domestic materials to secure federal funds. I think that would have limited the scope on most of the bids and delivered simplier proposals based on local availability which would have also produced more realistic time scales. Some of the costs may have been higher up front but federal funds and a bridge completed several years earlier would have counteracted those costs. Basically they didn't constrain the private companies enough. The state should how managed the procurement of materials themselves rather than thinking the private companies would better be able to get a deal.

States have numerous bridges, overpasses, highways, and etc. People are needed to maintain it all in addition to build it all. Private construction companies typically operate in fields where they can sell a service or a physical piece of property. Highways and bridges aren't typically for sell. So it makes sense that local govts would hire people and manage it themselves. The Golden Gate Bridge alone for example has about 200 full time employees responsible just for maintenance. While it is true that various private sector construction companies are hired for different purposes at various stages of projects local govt employees often oversee the work and are responsible for the outcomes. The California Department of Transportation has over 18,000 employees. In PA your Dept. of Trans has 12 ,000 employees. When you say "typically" this work is done by the private sector I think you are over simplifying things. Local govts are involved every step of the way and maintain the infrastructure long after it is built. This of course varies locality by locality. Rural locations, impoverished govts, or places without the available pool of worker they may choose to entirely contract out large infrastructure.

I actually think allowing the private sector to manage publicly funded endeavors often stifles private sector growth because so many of the contracts with the govt don't include robust competition or demand new products. When the Private sector is forced to compete exclusively in the private sector they must constantly evolve in order to succeed which often leads to innovation and businesses which are responsive to their consumers.

On the flip side of that I think larger people are less often able to put all their energy into something. It is more intimidating for bystanders larger person exerts force so I think on some level many larger individuals self limit the force they apply. I use to work with a very petite mechanic who use to just throw everything he had into taking apart large equipment in a manner that I probably would have gotten security called on me if had done the same. As a result I would guess he (the petite mechanic) has learned to and perhaps developed a greater ability to apply force from doing it so much more often.

Your example deals with sport (Rugby). Often superior mechanics and technique make one athlete appear physically stronger than another. The way one is able to leverage their weight and recruit the most amount of momentum can make a big difference.

The sales pitch that Govt should be ran like a business usually evolves/devolves into Govt should be ran by business from what I've seen.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' …Dick Cheney Fiscal Conservatism is a sham in my opinion. Republicans do not care about the govt's deficits, revenue, of budgets. They care about their own wealth and the wealth of their financial backers. I think Fiscal Conservatism is just a sales pitch.

Deficits continue to rise despite an otherwise stable economy thanks to the Tax Cuts. As part of the standard Republican sales pitch, which Trump used, the Tax Cuts were supposed to be paid for by spending cuts and increases in GDP. It failed under Reagan, it failed under Bush, and now seems to be failing under Trump.