waitforufo

Interesting use of the word “asking.” I don’t ever recall anyone “asking” me to pay my taxes. Wouldn’t a more appropriate word be forcing? Forcing at the point of a gun with the threat of imprisonment. Also, I have never considered my response to force as something to be described as giving or helping. Perhaps you meant to say the following. What’s wrong with forcing people who have benefited from our common infrastructure to pay from the fruit of labor for utilizing that same infrastructure once they've realized that benefit? Not as nice sounding, but honest. I believe the answer to your question has to do with fairness. As you mention this infrastructure resource is held in common. Using my own life as an example I fail to see how I have used this resource any different than any other common citizen. So why should I pay more? Particularly, why should I be forced to pay a higher percentage? In fact, I could easily argue that I have used these common resources less than most. That is why I have wealth. So why shouldn't I pay less? How was spending more time at work than the average person utilizing our common infrastructure more than someone who spent less? How was delaying personal gratification so that I could fully fund my 401k aggressive use of our common infrastructure? How was working full time jobs while attending college? How was always trying to live near work so I could walk to work abusive infrastructure use? How was driving second hand cars and fixing them myself using more of this common resource? How was taking jobs that others would not take using more than my fair share? In fact, I think all of this points to a gentle and considerate use of our common infrastructure. So why should I pay more? My outcome has been very good not because of an over utilization of our common infrastructure but by my lack of use. Your problem is that you only look at the current outcome. You believe that someone who made immediate choices throughout their lives should be taxed less and receive more from government. I know plenty of people with nearly identical backgrounds and life circumstances to mine own that have far less wealth. If they went to college, they maxed out their student loans instead of working. Some skipped college because the commitment it took got in the way of their current desires. They drove new cars. They went on expensive vacations every year. They purchased homes they could not afford. Now they are broke. I do not begrudge these people for the life of pleasure that they have lead. For them it may have been the correct choice. I do however expect them to live with the consequences of their decisions. Also, they should be ashamed of themselves for coveting the wealth I have accumulated through sacrifice and hard work. Now it is my turn at pleasure. They should be happy for me. Perhaps you should read “The millionaire next store.” It may show you a path to wealth. Happiness comes from accepting responsibility for your own choices and circumstances. If you don't who will? http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

Simple. 1) Taxing more only leads to spending more. We have a spending problem. Government is already too big and will continue to grow to the bounds of taxation. Let’s keep those bounds tight. 2) Taxing the "rich" only makes taxing people with middle incomes more acceptable once "fairness" has been achieved. The way things are today you can't tax me more because that would only make the perceived injustice even less fair. 3) What's wrong with letting people enjoy the fruit of their labors and property that belongs to them? Now some questions for you. Why do you covet what does not belong to you? Why can't you see someone else’s success and think "good for them"? When you see the success of others, why does their success not inspire you to make your own? Why do you think wealth is a zero sum game? There can always be more wealth. You just need to make your own. Quit coveting mine.

If you pass a law contrary to the culture of the people subjected to that law, that law is a waste of time. That is why the prohibition of alcohol and laws prohibiting abortion are both a waste of time. That is why gun control in the US is a waste of time. Also, be practical, there are way too many firearms in circulation in the United States. Many of those firearms are only cosmetically different from the AR15. So the only law that has a chance of passing at the moment is a law very similar to the one currently in effect in Connecticut. The same law under which Nancy Lanza legally purchased her Bushmaster AR15. Yes, you may be able to pass a law to remove flash suppressors and bayonet lugs from firearms you find unattractive, but to what end? Zero. Like I said you have to look at the smoking model. It took a long time to go from smoking nearly anywhere at any time to banning smoking in public places. Culture had to be changed. Perhaps Sandy Hook can shock people into a culture change but I doubt it. The 7th circuit court of appeals just ruled that Illinois has to pass a concealed carry law and gave the state 180 days to get it done. Americans love firearms. I could be wrong but my guess is nothing will change that. Also, recent Supreme Court decisions have only strengthened gun rights. With regard to passing laws regarding the mentally ill what I’m suggesting is nothing different to how we handled the mentally ill in the United States back in the 70’s. You know those bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Back then if you were found to have a mental condition that made you a danger to yourself or others you were committed to a mental hospital, treated, and released when your mental state adequately improved. The third time you were committed however you were generally committed for life. Yes there were exceptions, particularly if new more effective medications were developed but generally you were committed for life. Why? Most that were recommitted stopped taking there meds. Likely they only needed to skip them once or they reduced the dose to avoid side effects. In either case that was enough to make them think the meds were causing their problems and they stop taking them all together. Within a few weeks they are recommitted. Do that twice and you wouldn’t be set free. The ACLU however got involved because while committed and medicated these patients were mentally stable and sued to be set free. So now if you need a third commitment you are turned away. Why waste resources on people who have demonstrated that they will quit taking the meds? Why protect the populous when the courts make that protection impossible?

Is this a surprise? If the feds were taking about reenacting the prohibition of alcohol, wouldn’t most people purchase liquor? Wouldn’t the distilleries be running at capacity 24/7 until the talk stopped or the prohibition was enacted? If you want people to purchase something get politicians to start talking about banning that thing. It’s a tried and true method. These gun control laws are a waste of time. It’s like believing that passing a law to ban abortion would stop abortion. We tried that too and it didn’t work. If you want to reduce gun ownership you need to appeal to people’s moral sense. You need to make people social outcasts for owning guns. Use the smoking model. If you want to stop mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others from committing mass murder you need to lock such people up, particularly if they have a demonstrated risk of not taking there meds when outside of supervision.

I think Obama agrees that this tax increase will cause a drag on the economy. Not only less hiring but less spending by those who will be taxed more. To offset this economic drag, Obama's fiscal cliff plan includes $255 billion in stimulus. This tax increase will do little to reduce our $1 trillion annual deficits, particularly when it is just window dressing for more government spending. The only way we are going to get out of the hole we are in is to grow the economy in a significant way. Unfortunately may people, and the politicians they elect, think our economy is too big right now and would like to make it smaller. The little foot print crowd wants to have their cake, entitlement spending, and eat it, reduce consumption, at the same time. A bigger economy would increase prosperity and provide the resources for government spending at a lower percentage of GDP. This is how we got out of the hole we were in after WWII and every recession in our history. Unfortunately this is unacceptable to the little foot print crowd.

Just out of curiosity I took a look a gun laws in Connecticut with respect to "assault weapons." These laws can be found at http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm. Looks like they are illegal to me. Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. Sec. 53-202e. Relinquishment of assault weapon to law enforcement agency. Sec. 53-202f. Transportation of assault weapon. Authorized actions of gun dealer. Sec. 53-202g. Report of theft of assault weapon. Sec. 53-202j. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with an assault weapon: Eight-year nonsuspendable sentence. Sec. 53-202k. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm: Five-year nonsuspendable sentence. Sec. 53-202o. Affirmative defense in prosecution for possession of specified assault weapon From what I read in the news Nancy Lanza bought her Bushmaster AR15 in Connecticut. The Connecticut assault weapon law specifically calls out the Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol as prohibited, but my guess is that Nancy didn’t purchase either of these specific models. The law also defines an assault weapon as.. (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: i. a folding or telescopic stock; ii. a pistol grip; iii. a bayonet mount; iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and v. a grenade launcher I’m sure the weapon she purchased included a pistol grip, and I know Bushmaster makes models without the other 4 items. So by legal statute the rifle purchased by Nancy Lanza was likely not an assault weapon in Connecticut. By the way, the other 4 items on the assault rifle list would only reduce the accuracy of any rifle. Not that much accuracy is needed in a classroom setting. So the Connecticut assault weapon law may have made some people feel better, but all it really did was made semiautomatic rifles more deadly.

Where I live all schools have the sign below posted at every door. This is just an invitation to school gun mayhem. I wonder if such signs were posted at Sandy Hook? If this sign were changed to say only properly trained school staff are permitted to carry firearms, that by itself would be a deterrent, even if no staff chose to become trained or carried firearms. Would it prevent all school gun violence? I doubt it, but why not save the lives that you can?

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html Even I'm surprised this story still has legs. The hole just keeps getting deeper.

No, but but when provided an intelligence briefing of an attack on American soil and the assassination of an American ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11/2001, I suggest he should tell those providing such a briefing to make sure that al Qaeda or their proxies are not involved. I would hope he would also tell them that they will be fired if they are wrong. I also expect that President to get the story straight with in 14 days especially if he is going to go before the UN and apologize for how our free speech rights have the tendency to offend others to the point of murder. Finally I expect the President to respond to violence against America forcefully instead of being too busy on the campaign trail complaining about how this whole situation is so confusing that it will take until after the election to figure it out.

I think that is why he thought he would get away with it. All this talk about the President repeating what he was told. First Presidents are expected to turn on their brains every now and then. Was he repeating what he was told even 14 days after the incident when speaking at the UN. That is very difficult to believe. The attack was on the anniversary of 9/11/2001 and an ambassador was killed. There was intelligence saying it was a terrorist attack. Why default to the spontaneous mob attack? Perhaps because it fit his election rhetoric?

One other unseemly aspect of blaming this terrorist attack on a movie review gone wrong is that such an explanation encourages Islamaphobia. By blaming the attack on the video, the president might as well have said “well you know the Muslims have a blood lust when it comes to insults to Mohammad and sometimes that blood lust even leads to killing the liberators of their oppression.

If the president would have simple admitted that this was a terrorist attack that got by our vigilant efforts to stop such attacks and then responded against terror camps in Libya, this would have all blown over in a week. Yes, now his political opponents have one "on him" and they will continue to exploit it, and why shouldn't they? The President and his staff continue with their dishonesty. It's important because the American people don't like dishonesty. They also don't like our country projecting weakness. Projecting weakness isn't good foreign policy.

While this question was not asked of me, I'm give you my answer. Mr Obama is running for a second term as President. Part of his campaign rhetoric is that "al Qaeda is on the run" and that the regime change in Libya is a signature example of President's foreign policy. A planned attack of our Benghazi embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 by an al Qaeda linked terrorist group casts doubt on both of these claims. Al Qaeda appears to have us on the run in Libya. Does the President want his signature on a Libyan al Qaeda proxy state? Also by claiming that the Benghazi attack was the result of a spontaneous transition of a peaceful protest to mob violence, the President avoids questions about general competence. While the American people may understand the unpredictability of spontaneous mob violence, these same people may not be so forgiving about missing a planned al Qaeda linked attack on an American embassy and the assassination of our ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11/2001. Finally, blaming the Benghazi attack on an American made video places blame on America and on American free speech. Why do this when it is not true? Why is the President doing this? Why does he cling to this BS about a spontaneous mob attack resulting from a C- grade video? I guess because he is in too deep to quit now. Perhaps narcissism prevents him from seeing how dishonest his response to the Benghazi attack makes him appear. How would he explain his September 25 speech to the UN? At this point the backlash from admitting the truth might cost him the election. On the other hand trying to wait out his deception may do the same. Are my terms unequivocal enough?

Is this proof enough for you John? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024 Do you see any mention of a video in these emails?

What happened on 9/11/2012 is that an organized military strike took place on our embassy in Benghazi. This attack took place in the absence of any protest by local Libyans anywhere near our Benghazi embassy. This was known by the State department within 24 hours of the strike as was given in testimony in House hearings. With this knowledge UN ambassador Susan Rice went on weekend talk shows telling the American people that the our embassy was overrun by mob violence resulting from protests stemming from the Mohammad video. John Cuthber provides a video where President Obama links the Benghazi attack to disrespecting the religious beliefs of others and calls it a terrible act. Why make this linkage? On the anniversary of 9/11/2001 a military strike in the absence of protests takes place on our embassy and the President blames this military strike on mob violence? Then on September 25 the President goes before the UN and goes on and on about the Mohammad video and its linkage to the Benghazi embassy attack. But the State Department said they knew with 24 hour that there was no protest that turned to mob violence against our embassy. If you don’t see a lie in the above you have cotton in your ears. Tonight on John Stuarts show you can hear the President of the United States say “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” Shocking. Not only that, it wasn’t just four Americans. Our ambassador was assassinated in a military strike on our embassy by al Qaeda linked terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11/2001. I think “not optimal” is a bit of an understatement.

Now Obama hides behind Hillary’s skirt. I wonder how well that will play with women voters.

Assuming correct and intended implementation and execution… That "Assuming" leaves this topic quite ill defined. I believe affirmative action is an important remedy to correcting injustice both past and present. It is also an important way to giving opportunity to those in poverty. But how is it correctly implemented? I think all should be encouraged to apply to the college or university of their choice. Colleges and universities should review all candidates using both conventional and unconventional means. By unconventional I mean life experiences beyond test scores, grades, and participation in traditional extracurricular activates l like DECA, honor societies, clubs (4H, FFA, Scouts, community organizing) and sports. For example, perhaps work should be considered. A student living in poverty that has a 2.8 GPA but has held a full time job while in school might perform better at Harvard than an upper middle class student that played volley ball, was in DECA, has great SAT scores, and a 3.8 GPA. If admissions offices looked for the former as aggressively as they look for the latter I would call that affirmative action. Also, I think admissions officers should consider achievement impacted by living in a racial ghetto or by an applicant who's achievement has been impacted sexual discrimination. The important aspect of my commentary above is that admissions offices focus on the potential success of applicants based on the standards of their institution. Standards that should be applied to all equally. There is nothing affirmative about providing an opportunity for likely failure. For most families success takes several generations. How many times have you heard of people who were the first in their family to graduate high school, or attend college, even if that college was a two year community college? Affirmative action can provide access to these lower rings as well as the higher ones. Finally, one needs to consider that discrimination is not just applied to groups. Discrimination is also applied to individuals. Individuals can better understand being passed over for people that succeed than for those that fail. When admissions offices select candidates to meet affirmative action goals, and these candidates fail based on an inability to meet standards, candidates that were passed over justifiably feel discriminated against. These failures are more likely to occur if quotas replace goals in affirmative action.

Who do I think won the debate and why? I think Fox News won based on viewership numbers. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/vp-debate-ratings-joe-biden-paul-ryan_b149342 Those a quite impressive numbers for Fox News. You have to wonder how these debate viewership numbers will impact the election. Also one needs to consider how many people thought the VP Debate was even worth watching. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/vp-debate-ratings-cant-match-palin-from-2008/2012/10/12/ce52d3c4-14bc-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html So 26% fewer people watched this VP debate compared to the previous VP debate. So with fewer people watching and most of the viewers watching Fox News, I doubt the debate will help Obama ticket much. Romney doesn't seem to need the help at the moment. So the only winner I see is Fox News. I'm a little surprised about all this talk about lies. We are talking about politicians and they were opening their mouths.

Just a quick point, waitforufo, and it's similar to one I've made to you repeatedly in threads about climate change... It's easy to be angry and perplexed when you lack a credible connection to facts and reality. Even your own quote blames a movie review gone wrong. Also, perhaps you forgot this little gem. http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/ Then there is Obama's UN speech. He might as well have said "please don't hurt us for the things iNow writes in Science Forums about religion nearly every day." But did the movie have anything to do with the attack? Not according to the State Department testifying before the House Committee. Who do those fools in the State Department work for again? Finally you mention climate change and credibility in the same sentence. No wonder you are so confused.

With the protest events that happened in Egypt occurring at nearly the same time as the events in Libya it is understandable that the White House might jump to the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was somehow related. Based on recent House hearings however it is now known that that members of the state department new that this was an organized terrorist attack soon after the attack occurred. This quick knowledge of the actual events should not come as a surprise based on the intelligence resources of the United States and the general affection of the Libyan people towards the United States based on our support during the ouster of the Gaddafi regime. What is perplexing is why has the President has not fully acknowledged that this was a terrorist attack. Why has the President not acknowledged that the State Department, an office of the White House, knew of requests for additional security prior to the attack? Why is the President projecting weakness by not responding to this terror attack? I recall after the 9/11/2001 attack quite a bit of discussion about a failure to "connect the dots" in known intelligence which could have prevented the events of that day. Now we seem to be intentionally avoiding the dots of 9/11/2012. Request for additional security were ignored. While CNN made an early visit to the remnants of our embassy, the FBI was cowering back in Washington DC due to “security concerns.” On September 25 the President addressed the UN still sticking to the movie review gone bad story line. Well since the President won’t explain the White House blunder in Benghazi IMO he deserves all the negative appearances resulting from 9/11/2012. I tend to believe that the terror attack of 9/11/2012 made a mockery of the President’s Libyan regime change. It robbed him of a his signature foreign policy success just when he needed it most. As a result he has attempted to stick to the movie protest story. Then he hoped that time would make the American people forget before the election. Now in frustration he and his lackeys are pushing the “only Romney and the Republicans care about the assassination of an American ambassador” line. All of this is shameful and yet it persists. This forum topic is “Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya.” Perhaps it should be “Who should have prevented it.” The answer to that is clear. President Obama. President Obama should apologize to the American people. He is currently enjoying the fallout for not doing so.

What's the big deal anyway? According to President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney, attacks on an American embassy and murder of an American ambassador are not attacks on the United States. They are simply inappropriate expressions of anger against a video. Nothing to see here, just move along. http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/

Why don’t we roll this back a bit. Phi for All stated… Part of my reply to his post included. Part of your reply to this was. This is simply not true. The US government runs all kinds of power plants and maintains major power grids through the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, and BPA. In fact the US government is a major player in electric power generation in the US. There are many reasons why our economy is suffering. Unemployment, huge and rapidly growing federal deficits, trade deficits due to energy importation, and so on. If as I suggested the federal government put forth an aggressive program to increase electric power generation through federal entities like the BOR, BPA, and TVA they would create large amounts of domestic employment, create large amounts of affordable electric power, and that electric power would help us grow the economy reducing our federal debt as a percentage of GDP. Why do you think this is a bad idea? Are you against growing the economy?

I suggested you look up the Tennesse Vally Authority. Here is a wiki link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority This page lists all the dams, coal fired, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, waste derived methane generation facilities built and run by this federal government entity. The BPA also runs a nuclear plant at Hanford Washington. I'm sure I could find more, but what's the point, you are not listening. You said "The government usually does not run power utilities." The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation is the second largest producer of electricity in the country.

Have you heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration? Perhaps you should search Google. Take a look at Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. That would be a good start. I'm sorry but your example is chump change. If you are thinking production for domestic consumption you are simply planning for US decline. First, the last time I checked euro178 billion is some serious cash. Also, my guess is that excluding foreign companies from bidding on contracts does not exclude domestic companies from winning those contracts and then subcontracting them out to foreign entities. When I have time I will read your links. We need cheap power to grow our economy. Wind and solar are not cheap. At least they produce power. So go ahead and spend some cash on wind and solar. But to rely on it at the moment is foolhardy. If you run this poll you should perhaps word it like this... "Would you approve more tax cuts for corporations, which everyone making under $200,000 per year would have to make up for, so these corporations can create new jobs, one for an American and three for workers overseas and where the American worker will make twice as much as all three of the overseas workers combined."

Yes, actually I think they would. I have worked as an electrical engineer for three decades. In that time I have seen almost all manufacturing of electronic products move off shore. Why? Well Americans like cheap electronics. Perhaps electronics is our version of bread and circuses. Also cheap manufacturing of electronics enables a lot of very good jobs here in the US. Take wireless and internet services for example. Virtually all the equipment used in these two industries are manufactured in Asia. From cell site and tower equipment to the network operating centers, every piece of equipment is made in Asia. But the engineering is mostly done here and in other western nations. The installation, maintenance and operation is done here. Those are all good jobs. Middle class jobs. I'm glad I have mine. So yes I do think making iPhones a little cheaper would have been adequate justification.