Saryctos

I'd think that a more accurate date for arab anger(about the Jewish population specifically) started in the mid to late 30s actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising using the Kibbutz Wiki entry as a starting point there is actually quite a lot of information available on the whole process of isreali-arab relations beginning with jewish migration starting in the late 1800s. Obviously it's not a complete history(it's wikipedia, use it as a launching post for inquiries not the end to them), but by the last link I ended up with a lot of new information.

That is the sort of question you don't respond to in a public forum, it's tasteless.

For ****'s sake...This is the kind of crap that's allowed on government websites?

I think a helping hand would be to convince people that everyone needs a 'commuter' vehicle. You can keep your SUV, your v8 monster, but use your $10k highway/city vehicle for the straight trips with minimal luggage. If people were encouraged to use a two car system(1 regular, 1 small and efficient), not only would it save on gasoline, but it would increase the demand for more automobiles. The problem here is the supply/demand conundrum. How do you make people want what doesn't exist? Then how do you justify the cost if there's no demand? Hell, these commuter vehicles could even be designed in a way that makes it easier for future integration with an automated transit system. I'm not sure how well a shared vehicle program would work out. Too many a-holes would screw it up, too much worthless litigation over damages, or false claims of damage on the guy who borrowed it before you. Although I could see it working for individual businesses and their employees. Smaller, well known user base would make it more personal and less likely for careless damage and misuse.

My long rant post was lost...but the gist was that people really need to think about the amount of $$ the big three make the government. Income taxes alone for all the workers in the auto industry would probably more than pay off the bail out by 2011.

Trickle down being on the cost side. If it takes an extra $X to make something the cost will be passed down the chain. Unfortunately as it goes down it snowballs as well. From producer to retailer plenty of extra %s are tacked onto the price increase. So in essence if you increase the price to the producer, the cost to the end user is even higher.

They don't work together, they compete against each other. Why would they 'jet-pool' together? So they can hear each others' phone conversations and view the enemies' spread sheets? It is business as usual. These companies will still exist even if they file bankruptcy. They just won't be supplying nearly as much welfare to the auto industry.

The problem is it ISN'T a big deal. I don't know why that's being so blown out of proportion. You have a private jet to get places you need to be when you need to be there. It's just not that much of a luxury as it is a staple of doing business in the high end.

These jobs shouldn't even exist in the first place. The unions are only delaying the inevitable. The large majority of these line positions should be automated as is. They perpetuate old world industrial ideals. Big evil company oppressing their workers which need the union. The big evil company no longer needs hoards of line workers. But if there were no workers then there's no one for the union to mooch off of. So they need to keep the jobs to keep the power. After writing all this out I think I've convinced myself that we're in a labor bubble(never thought of saying it in those terms until just now), and it won't be long until it bursts. Why isn't there a programmers union? I'm sure there are plenty of programmers out there who's jobs are always in flux due to company downsizing, buyouts and such. Why haven't they unionized? Because they can earn based on merit. They are a skilled workforce whos years of experience can be used on a resume to increase job oppertunity or job pay. Laborers, not so much. They spend multiple years of their lives doing a job that requires minimal training and no expertise. If you owned a company whos employees didn't ever advance their abilities you'd be left in the dust by other companies that innovate. Worse yet, think that you can't fire the old employees and you have to continually pay them more and more without gaining anything from them. Say one day you get a new automated call center suite that can replace your receptionist(I know I know, automated call centers suck, but just go with it for the example). Now, before you can implement it all of your employees say that they'll stop working if you intend on replacing the receptionists with this new program. Some one made that program to replace the receptionist, they make their money from creating these things. Now because you can't implement it without losing your business you won't buy it. That means that a horde of unskilled laborers just used their power to make a service provided by skilled professionals worth less money. Worse yet is that each of those skilled laborers is probably paid better than the people who designed that program! How is that good for the economy? For the advancement of the US as a whole? Education is devalued by their continued efforts to keep the US in the 1900s. The problem? Lots of undereducated people won't be able to feed their families or afford their house payments once these jobs disappear. I'd like to think that this is a problem that can solve it self over time if these giant parachute companies weren't supplying them with work, but I'm not so sure it can happen without intervention. If you don't have a job how can you afford to go back to school to get a new one? If you're working long hours at a low wage job how do you have time to go back to school? What if there was a military of the mind? A compulsory schooling institution that trains unskilled people for free with a requirement of service in the gov't(similar to the terms of a military contract). I know it's pretty socialistic, and there's plenty of problems, but I think something with at least this kind of intention could be a good thing. There needs to be a good way to implement continuing education to the masses. The only entity that I know of with the kind of staying power to shoulder the initial investment loss is the gov't. Hell they wouldn't even have to do the training, it could be something like a vouchers program. Education is almost always a good investment, so it's more than just a loan. The goal of reducing the unskilled labor market is good for the country, it would bring millions of people out of the 'poor trap'(no time to learn, no money to stop working).

Guns are also used for home protection and fun at the range/skeet trap. In some cases I've heard of people using them for goose bustin'

You won't find a single one. To the union it is unfair to grant anything based on something other than your seniority or commitment to the union.

28$/hour(75$ when calculating benefits) was/is(they've been able to start hiring in @ 14$/hour these days) a pretty standard wage for an autoworker. For a job that can be performed with no high school diploma required is what I call absurd. Plus in more than a few plants there a strict robot to worker policies(one example is that for every robot working in the factory there must be 2 payed hourly employees). From what I've seen from working in a plant for a bit, the work force is pretty crappy(probably because they're all dumb as hell and it doesn't matter 'cause you can't fire them!). The unions are always claiming that they fight for the rights of the worker, while all they do is perpetuate a new form of elitism. Thousands apply for the autoworker jobs whenever they can, the requirements are non existent and if you get the job the general feeling is like winning the lottery. For every worker making 28$/hour, how many more workers could there be making a wage that seems inline with the work? The unions even taxes their members, 2 hours out of the first paycheck of the month. In many states if you work at a union shop, you must be a union member(or you don't get in). So that's a mandatory cost of working with the union. The mentality in the union is very similar to the sense of entitlement throughout the country. It's not a job that you have to work to keep, it's a money factory and they should be glad to have you. Glad that you have no work ethic, are dumb as a brick, and cost the company even more than your salary due to the amount of errors you cause during all transitions of part production which you are rarely, if ever accountable for. I could rant all day about the UAW, but I think the more I talk the more anecdotal it becomes, even though there's a plethora of anecdotal corroborations due to the immense size of the union and the depth of its reach. It feels less like a productive union fighting for workers rights and more like a welfare for the uneducated. Instead of being funded by the gov't it's just being funded by the inflated cost of the vehicles they produce.

Unions have failed our country, and will continue to do so until their power is curtailed.

This analogy misses that the gov't is paying for the beef. You can still be a vegetarian, but the gov't is paying for beef.

IIRC there was a study showing that tax cuts lead to increases in charitable giving =)

wow...(rechecks his math), $40/hour tax free is some pretty nice cash >_>

Not physically capable of producing children isn't different? Because that's the ONLY difference I can see between the two(to deny that this difference exists is pretty thick headed, whether or not it matters is a different thing). Other than that, I see no reason why they should be treated differently at all.

whooops 17 minutes a day...much less unreasonable =P

I'm all for the middleschool / highschool parts. I feel that education reform shouldn't be just about subject matter revisal, but the whole schooling experience. Getting kids out to help people, see what's going on in the real world outside of their family and the school buildings. The college seems a little "wtf?" you're already studying your ass off, probably working a part time job, and in the prime age of partying, your shedule is already so booked it just seems like an unneeded headache. and @ 100hours, that's an average of 2.5 hours a day. But then on top of this, there's the idea that all this free labor is just going to increase unemployment. There might have been jobs available to do these things had children not been rounded up en mass to do them.

The office of Truthiness? Head director Steven Colbert =P

To the letter of the law it is the same. Which was the only reason for the comment. It is not an argument against gay marriage, it is an argument against the argument that the rights are being denied. There are no rights that currently exist. This is not to say that they shouldn't be, it's just pointing out that new laws need to be made. I don't see how this is relevant to the quote it was in response to. If you wanted a more apt analogy, it would be that benefits were applied to blonds driving flying cars, then when red heads started driving flying cars they become upset that only their hair color is different and demand the same rights as blonds. Doesn't change the fact that people are addressing this in an incorrect fashion. Do you want gay couples to have equal right? then stop treating them as though it's the same situation. Man + Woman = baby. Man+Man = baby? Woman+Woman = baby? Tell me an orange is an apple again, it'll change the taste this time... Gay people deserve the same rights as any straight person, plenty of people can agree on this. Then why is it that people disagree about marriage? Because the principle purpose is the children. It is the only difference between the two situations, and it is NOT changeable no matter how many want it to be. In this case it is different, is that reason to deny gay marriage? No. It is however a very notable difference that people refuse to acknowledge.

Nah, they'd work in a union shop for $28/hour =P

That's just it, no rights are being denied. People are asking for something that never existed before. This is a creation of rights, not restoration of ones previously denied. I understand the sentiment here, I understand how it's different but still the same. With one exception, the need to reproduce. It's a state of mind that directly contradicts the basic drive to create offspring. I'm not trying to redefine or start debating the science behind homosexuality. I just wanted to have my view on it out there so you could see where I was coming from. I would like to see marriage completely removed from the gov't. It's just something that should really have no impact on taxes and such. The idea of a 'civil union' would work. Remove the sexual component and make it so that any people living together can reap the benefits. Whether they be hetero, homo, or not romantically linked in any way. If the benefits are about the economic situation of two individuals then what does it matter if they are romantically involved? The opinions about gay marriage of the populace should have no relevance on the tax benefits of two people living together. If you remove the sexuality from the equation then there's nothing to debate about, it's just two people living in a house, what they do within is all up to them. As it stands, it is the governments business what's going on in the bedroom, and I think that should change.

A re-read of my post would indicate that indeed, the answer to those questions given my words would be yes. If this is the case, then why merely accept it? What if there was a way to "cure" homosexuality? Not that I would think forcing it on the current homosexual populace, but more of a preventative thing(breed it out with gene therapy). Obviously this would be a bit off topic, but if there was a way to stop the damaged genetic material from propagating early in life would people do it? Would people think there was a moral/ethical problem with it?

A gay person can still marry a member of the opposite sex. They have exactly the same rights.