jackson33

swansont; As I suggested, members of Congress have threatened different policy on the "Oil Industry", which includes "Nationalization". There is nothing new here and I doubt anyone else would contest my statement.

BP (BRITISH Petroleum) is a publicly traded equity on many exchanges including the NYSE (BP). In the past few weeks the Companies value (market cap) has dropped from around 200BUS$ to under 100B$. As both a foreign Company and one in the Oil/Gas Business, they are highly regulated by Congress and need permits to do much of anything, in addition to stages of any operation. Think about 2008, they did get out of the Retail Business in the US and any holdings along this area are to supply retailers. They do however employ around 30,000 people in the US. http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?Symbol=BP To further advance a coming opinions, Royal Dutch Shell, also operates in the US both in similar operations and at the retail level with about 22,000 US employees. To get an idea how these Corporations are regulated this Shell "wiki" article may be interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Oil_Company The President of the US, members of his staff and member of Congress are making some very serious threats to not only BP, but to any major Oil/Gas Contractor or the hundreds of subcontractors that are involved under US Law for doing business in the event an accident actually does happen and they most certainly WILL happen. I'll just mention just a couple; The President has stated, BP should NOT pay dividends to their stockholders, until after the situation is fully resolved, which will only drive down the value of the Company further. It will be felt by every holder of their over 3B shares, which no doubt means every American on any form of 401k or retirement program. While BP had nothing to do with Obama's moratorium on new exploration and/or drilling, it's being suggest BP should be liable for the wages of the effected over the next six month. Doing the math (25 rigs, 1200 workers @ $1800/wk each times 26 weeks) this would be at least 54M$/week, over 6 months over1.4B$, to cover HIS own moratorium. Please tell me the exact competency shown here?

Ignatiev quote;

Note to swansont; Thank you for unlocking this thread, as had the following ready to submit. I do think you might have placed in 'Suggestions', most along this line have been, but at least the author can see how his/her thread developes...

Well, it's the history of the Israel State, that formed my positive opinions on this action and an opposition to Palestinians and the current government of Gaza. At least back to WWII and the UN, which to me gives them the authority for much of action and policy of today, even if the UN has changed its own policy. I'm personally not Jewish, or do I practice any religion, but legally, morally and under the Worlds then authority, were granted (important) *accepted* the UN's mandates for Statehood. The Palestinians would not... As for moo's and CR discussion, I'm getting confused. An embargo is intended to disrupt a countries ability to govern or another way to influence the politics. In the case of the several attempts to get this embargo lifted, the use of militants or if you prefer activist/protestors, the idea is to allow free flow of anything into Gaza, which by definition means supplies to the terrorist, those that support terrorist and the government that may in fact be the terrorist, even if democratically elected. It should be known, realized and accepted, elections have consequences, which citizens of Gaza now can evaluate for themselves. moo, I need to point out that in the US, Jewish folks have traditionally voted about 60-40% in favor of the Democrats, but did vote nearly 80-20% (78) for Obama and that vote if taken would not have been, think from memory a poll suggest 65% opposed to Obama Israel policy. It's now down to being a propaganda war and without a strong US policy, it cannot be won by Israel, attested to by your hour by hour testimony, oops better add IMO.

As a member of 'Scottrade Premium' I have access to a good many news sources , not in any way limited to financial news, basically streaming from about 20 contributors or similar to what any newspaper or network receives. If something pops up interesting, I can usually access the entire article on screen and instantly. If anything like this exist, surely it must, I would suppose their would be a cost. Since this a 'Science Forum', I suggest you take a gander at Fox New, especially their science section. By email I receive updates from several sources daily and have noted most all are already in their science section. I do remember this thread when first submitted and the "Woods" comment, but generally speaking, you would have had a hard time NOT seeing that story on any news source. I'd bet (don't really know) it was the most googled news story for days if not weeks...

With all due respect, I have no idea what your talking about. However if nothing was lost (pay?) I'd be more concerned how the duplicate posting happened. On a forum format, most have an editing privilege, where you click edit and can simply cut the first two questions (post) and resubmit. I'd be more interested in how/why you enjoy something with such rigid policy?

louis wu; The first five ships were boarded, expectedly and without incident. Maybe you can visualize this without any evidence and then imagine what happened on the six ship, where the violence had to be premeditated. In the interest of the thread, it might be interesting for you to give an opinion on the embargo itself or the said intended objective of breaking (ending) that embargo which Israel simply can't allow. Anyway you look at this, anything that in some manner won't add to Hamas ability to conduct warfare or terrorism on Israel, will get to the people in need of aid and quite frankly IMO, directly to those people.

swansont; "Revenues to GDP", has held under 20% of GDP from 1930, the only times they went above were in 1946 and 2001 before the Bush Tax cuts, then 21%. Traditionally the optimum or acceptable draw from the public sector by taxation to maintain a vibrant economy has been thought to be 18-19%. I have no idea where your getting your statistics, unless your comparing outlays, which is not what was said, but here is an easy to read chart; http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20outlays%20and%20revenues

Pangloss; On this forum and on several occasions I've listed several ways or means to shrink the size of the US Federal Government. It's off topic, but in my mind the simplest and most logical way would by in all appropriate Federal Revenues (Tariffs/Excise or Constitutionally authorized not included), coming from the States, the States then responsible for all other activity, not delegated to the Federal and maintaining the same Constitution. This might require an amendment, but the current one could be used to facilitate the idea, but this one is still being questioned (second link).

swansont, I'm not sure of your point; How many Federal Employees there are does not necessarily equate to 'size of government'. Other factors have determined this, most notably outsourcing government duties and productivity which includes how many it has taken to do the same amount or today many times less the people to do, to what has been true (Computerization). For example and wildly guessing, it may have taken 5m man hours to receive, process and finalize the 40-50,000 income tax returns in 1950, where today 160 million can be done with 1m or less man hours. To say it another way, for what ever government is involved today, would not have been possible in 1950, even for 140m people if every person worked for the government. Another way, AT&T, couldn't even come close to handling all today's communications, by the methods used in 1950. Now here is a link, giving you the actual 'Cost' of Government, per year back to 1930. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php If you use the actual "outlays" and throw in the 2010 Estimate of 3.8T$ (3,800B), per capita and figuring in inflation (adjusting for), along with the 2009 FY outlays, there would be nothing like it under any Republican Congress. In fact what's disturbing is are the figures in the 1930/40's of budgeted and actually spent, that ARE comparable, even higher deficit percentages, were under a totally Democratic Controlled Congress and executive. Before you mention it, yes I know war's cost money, but Eisenhower®, JFK, Johnson, Nixon®, Bush I and II (R's), had some of the same problem. Pangloss; GDP/year is also at the above link, but briefly under Republican Presidents 20 years and Clinton with 6 years with a Republican Congress, the GDP grew from 3 to 15T$ over 28 total years. While it did grow some in FY 2009, it can ALL be attributed to Federal Spending, both Bush II/Obama. It may very well be basically stagnant in FY 2010 at 15.4 (current estimate) even with the Federal spending. That's not good... Family disposable incomes is what has decreased, well actually not increased with GDP percentage wise, in recent years, think since 1995 and can be directly linked to local/State taxes.

For what it's worth, I'll disagree; The accused, regardless of 'street smarts' will be at the mercy of all kinds of trickery to start talking. Diversionary tactics are already too common and for Miranda to have any meaning/teeth, the intentions for it was to allow a meaningful representation for the accused. Remember the accused is presumed guilty of nothing....

JohnB; I don't think I've ever seen a better laid out 'Legal Brief' and I have seen more than a few presented by some very knowledgeable legal researchers. Additionally the time and interest involved to form your brief and post, needs to be commended and what I'm doing....Well done.

I doubt you'll see Spector creating any waves, at least for the November Elections. I don't see an 80yo with the power he had, interested in becoming a freshman Senator with both major parties pretty well upset with him. However what he probably KNOWS about the entire process, would certainly be of interest, if he decided to write a 'tell all' book. Something was certainly offered HIM, to switch parties and maintaining seniority was not the only 'something'. Obviously helping in election efforts was and what created the problem in the first place.

forufesi; Without going into something, none of us probably truly understand the reasons for, an embargo/blockade can serve many purposes. Obviously, the Israelites are concerned with weapon getting into Gaza and their not particularly happy about feeding and clothing those that will try pursue acts of terrorism on their people (Islamist militants), but they would like to influence deterioration of the ruling party, Hamas (Will not recognize Israel). Frankly, I don't see the difference, but... I still feel, if the relief/aid shipments were unloaded at an Israel Port and the goods then transported into Gaza, limitations would be less restrictive. As for somehow hiding destructive materials, it's really not that hard. Here is another article, breaking today that may emphasize the problems Israel has in controlling imports of weapons, into GAZA. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE64P139.htm