Aileron

Hey, I put 'earned' in quotes for that reason. Okay, so we have a rich person who got a lot of money for not much effort. If we tax that person's money away, now we got a government person who got a lot of money for not much effort. That's not an improvement, at best it is a step sideways. The goal is to cause poor people to earn more money. If revenues are the same regardless to how much the rich are taxed, then the only purpose taxing the rich will serve is to cause the rich to keep less money, which doesn't meet the objective of helping the poor. If you want a government program helping the poor, fine, but that process is different than the one of taxing the rich. Even if the government has programs which successfully help the poor, the revenues of those programs are based upon the constant 20% of GDP revenues. Taxes for the rich are irrelevant towards the end of helping the poor. Unless you believe that money floating around the economy is a bad thing, there's no reason to tax the rich. That's precisely what your claim was in your first paragraph, but that's bull. I could claim that the housing bubble was a result of rich people trying to protect their income from being taxed. At the end of the day, both of those arguments are unproven rhetoric. The theory the article cites is hard science. A good analogy is that taxing the rich is like taking half of Donald Trump's money and burning it in a bonfire in a town square. It would do nothing to help the rest of us. Sure technically it would reduce the 'income gap' by making Donald Trump less rich, but it also reduces the total wealth. At the end of the day, it hasn't made any of the rest of us richer, and on the side it has pissed Donald Trump off. The only purpose it fulfills is that of jealousy, which is an at!@#$%^&*ude that is counter-productive because it displaces the desires of socioeconomic justice.

Wall Street Journal I'd like to discuss this one, though the discussion will be short as this is pretty factual. Personally, prior to this, I never was passionate about higher taxes for rich people. To me all it meant was that instead of the obscene amount of money going to the person who 'earned' it, it goes to some government stooge who didn't. Either way, the working man doesn't see a dime of it. Now that it doesn't increase revenue, I say forget the idea. Yes, corporate executives make way more money than they are worth. There seems to be a perception in companies that there are only a handful of people qualified to do a CEO's job, when in reality there are a lot more. If the government would do anything on the subject, they should try to reduce those salaries rather than take it for themselves. (Side note: Did you ever notice how many common criminals in history compared themselves to Robin Hood? They rob some rich company such as a bank and all of a sudden they aren't greedy crooks; they are rebel crusaders upholding social justice! In my opinion, 'rob from the criminally rich and give to the poor' is a lot different than 'rob from the legitimately wealthy and keep for yourself'.) A better solution is to give companies tax breaks proportional to its number of employees times the median salary of those employees. (Note: Median, not Mean. The mean would get raised by those ridiculous CEO salaries. An adjusted mean could work though.)

Well, I'd go with Ethiopia. They are single minded. Egypt is sort of torn, kind of like Saudi Arabia only less extreme. They have ties with the west, but they also have a large contingent of Muslim Brotherhood members, which as I've said before is the base of supply and funding for virtually every Sunni terrorist group in the world. Every time I see talk about possible peace between Israel and Palestine, I think 'why bother?'. Peace there just isn't going to happen. Here however I think peace is entirely possible. BTW, ThunderJam, you've confused me with someone else. The 'hands off the Middle East' philosophy is what everyone else here subscribes too. My mindset is that we should start in Turkey and march east until we reach India.

The reason for the lack of statute of limitations for this crime is for the sake of justice. Finland, not to be rude, but your logic clearly confuses the concept of justice with that of either closure or revenge. Justice is justice no matter what the victim's feelings on the matter are. True, the victims have probably put it behind them, so closure has been obtained. However, justice has not.

Ace, this election has been rigged in her favor since 1996 at latest. Ever since her husband was elected, there's always been talk about Hillary Clinton running for president. Mostly, the rigging has more to do with the names that never made it on the ticket. There are plenty of Democratic Senators and Governors with more hard experience than Hillary, but not once was it even suggested they run. Mostly, the plan was to nominate 6 no-name opponents for her to chew up. It is also apparent in 2004 when they selected a weak candidate like John Kerry to run against Bush. They almost wanted their guy to lose. Clearly, it was rigged before it started. Now, granted, it appears as though it stopped being rigged for the race. But, the possibility of a rigged outcome has still not been eliminated yet. For all we know, the 'decided' super-delegates are planning on suddenly voting Hillary in the last minute, just so they can portray her as the "Come-back kid" (again). Probably not, but at this point it is not 'definitely not'.

Hey, No_remorse said it. All I did was the translating. In my opinion, Hillary got this far for being queen, and Obama got where he is because of the people hand-selected by the Democratic party leadership to lose to Hillary, he was the most qualified. There is something to be said to the claim the the majority of blacks are racist and will vote for Obama because he is black. Still, the Democratic party knows they could get the black vote in the main election anyway, so they don't nominate people for being black because it doesn't help. Astro, this election has been rigged since the early 90s. You can pretty much count on all of the super-delegates voting Hillary. Don't plan on it being over until its over.

That does remind me of something random but worth a thought. There are a lot of movies out there where either the whole or parts of New York City are destroyed by apocalyptic forces, whether they be aliens from outer space, falling asteroids, or giant tidal waves. I wonder if some people are subconsciously grouping those movies with the actual event. The only movie featuring the destruction of NYC after 9/11 was "The Day After Tomorrow". As I said, images of New York City being overrun by CGI hurricanes are nothing new from Hollywood, but the perception that NYC was invincible no longer existed and so people may have taken that movie seriously. The fact that we are in the middle of a global warming scare is obvious.

I say pick whichever side we disagree with the least and help them win. Then, if we find the winners unacceptable, stab them in the back and replace them. We also need to get smart with aid. A lot of these regimes simply don't want their cons!@#$%^&*uency to get a decent amount of food, as when they do they become a threat. True aid in a situation like that involves more elements of removing the oppressors than by feeding the hungry.

Okay, so we evolve the fuel options...that's what I've been saying. For instance, go from gas from the ground, to gas from liquefied coal, then eventually to hydrogen fuel cells. Astro's the one who's saying we must skip the interim steps because fossil fuels are evil.

Motivation is still only one of two pieces though. The other component is ability. Drop the 10 richest people in the world out of an airplane, and they won't invent anti-gravity on the way down. If we cut off our fuel options, the economy tanks. If the economy tanks, we lose the ability to do research. Already, gas prices have had an impact on food. If the price of gas ends up impacting every industry which uses it, there simply won't be money to spend on the future because the short term needs would be more dire.

The extra pollution would be at a refinery rather than dispersed from thousands of cars. It could be cleaned up by putting a CO2 scrubber on the smokestacks. The '!@#$%^&* I pulled it out of' is basic economics, mostly based on the easily observable fact that gas is rising but demand isn't falling. That alone means the demand for gas is inelastic. A fully inelastic demand curve is a straight line, so the demand curve for something as inelastic as gas would be 'nearly straight'. While some vehicles have better gas mileage than others, usually people don't drive around unless they have to. I mean, in my case I drive a coup to and from work. If gas rises to $30 per gallon, I will still drive my same car the same distance to and from work. The only way to reduce demand by rising gas prices would be if gas got so expensive that the cost of driving to a workplace exceeds the salary workers get from that workplace. Only then will people stop driving to work and demand actually go down. Ofcourse, that means some entire industries would have to shut down. Also, that means a lot of people unable to earn money. In WW II and the Cold War, the economy was running. How many technical innovations came out of the Great Depression? Yes, motive helps. We have motive. However, the other component is means, means our economy will lack if we voluntarily choke our fuel supply.

If you want XP, get your laptop quick. I read somewhere that Microsoft is soon going to stop selling XP to bolster their Vista sales. I guess the question you really want to ask is: Is Vista genuinely poor, or is the Vista hate a bunch of anti-Microsoft propaganda? The answer is a little of both, but Vista is a poor operating system. It generally has a bunch of programs of marginal usefulness running in the background at all times. The OS gives a feeling that it was written by hard-core computer geeks addicted to hardware inflation and convinced that everyone buys a $2000 computer annually like they do. To their credit, the recent Vista Service Pack 1 is a huge improvement. It boosts performance a lot. My games seem to run a bit smoother with more graphics options on than before SP1. I'd even say Vista SP1 is about as fast as XP SP2 as long as you turn off some of Vista's useless features yourself. One thing you absolutely need to do, first thing, is turn off user account control. When it is on, programs will either be run 'by an administrator' or by default. The ones run by default will be run by a sort of emulator. In particular, a non-Microsoft program not 'Run as an Administrator' doesn't usually have permission to access or modify other files. For instance, a game program won't be able to access saved game files. Instead, it will access saved game files are hidden in some sort of emulated folder which I can't find. I mean, it is an incredibly useful piece of software for a computer in a school or business where you would want to prevent public access. However, for a home machine it gets in the way.

The idea is to subs!@#$%^&*ute a plentiful fuel for a scarce fuel. It is for economic, not ecological reasons. Yes, I realize it will be dirtier, but that extra pollution will all be at one spot and can be controlled. Besides, they would probably have to buy pollution credits from other companies which are cleaner, so our gas money would go towards subsidizing alternative energy rather than helping terrorists or the kind of regimes which cause it. Overall, it goes back to the college version of Supply and Demand. Oil is a need, and demand for oil is inelastic. We won't have much effect on prices if we keep trying to reduce demand, because the Price vs. Demand curve is nearly flat. While reducing demand is one part of the solution, the dominant other part is to increase supply, but every time somebody talks about increasing supply of a fossil fuel, environmentalists view it as sacrilege. Speaking of pollution credits, I think nuclear power plants should get some. They produce electricity just like an oil plant. Necessity isn't always the mother of invention. The microwave wasn't invented due to a shortage of gas stoves. The computer wasn't invented to overcome a scarcity of slide-rules. The light bulb didn't get invented to halt a critical candle shortage.

Unproven? Those processes have been used. In WW II, than Nazis got their fuel from liquefied coal when their regular supplies got cut off. It consisted of about 40% of their national fuel production. Sorry, but any technology that can fuel a thousand Tiger tanks while all industry was under constant bombardment, is anything but 'unproven'. If I'm not mistaken, the gasoline making processes are currently implemented in South Africa. The amount of time needed to research coal liquefication technology: 0 seconds The amount of money needed to research coal liquefication technology: $0 dollars The amount of time and money needed to implement coal liquefication technology: However much it takes to build a refinery. * Having minimum wage workers afford to be able to drive to work: priceless. *About one or two years, and a couple million dollars, both of which would turn a huge profit to whoever invested in it. Note, we won't have to make a new type of car, fuel station, and distribution network, which anything other than gas will require. As for 'encouragement', you actually have it backwards. Look at any company in any industry. When economic times are tough, research and development is the second thing to go right after middle management. If a lack of fuel based depression occurs, there likely won't be any research going on at all, in alternative fuels or anything else. Look, I know people want to believe that the current oil problem is a result of invading a country which has oil but wasn't supplying it, as well as OPEC being jerks about it, and I know that there is some truth in that idea too. But, the environmentalists are the ones who should get the primary credit for the current oil crisis. Every time we try to drill a new field, or install a new pipeline, or build a new power plant, its always 'no no no!'. They are also the reason why most alternative fuel ideas involved 'clean' things which suck. They generally get these doomsday scenarios in their heads, and once in they refuse to compromise.

Astro, that is precisely the at!@#$%^&*ude that is hurting us right now. If it follows the Laws of Thermodynamics, it must be an evil contributor of global warming and thus a destroyer of the world. You want a clean, renewable, and powerful source of energy which only exists in future technologies which haven't been researched enough for us to know what the flaws are. Electric cars are fine, except electricity isn't a fuel. A fuel is something that has high potential energy. Electricity is something generated by fuel. If we put electric cars on the road, the next question becomes 'Where do we get the electricity?'. Hydrogen powered cars are pretty much the same. It will always take more energy to create the hydrogen than you will get out of the car. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Carnot Heat Cycle, a hydrogen powered engine will at most output 40% of the power which was consumed in order to make the hydrogen, and that's !@#$%^&*uming the car doesn't encounter deconstructive forces such as friction. Granted, such things are still probably part of the long-term solution. Having a car which runs on electricity widens the fuel possibilities. You could then use Nuclear or Hydroelectric power for the cars, but keep in mind those methods won't come without their respective consequences. The problem isn't the lack of solutions. The problem is that there are enough idiots with no comprehension of physics who think they have all the answers. Entropy happens. Eventually, the entire universe is going to experience heat death and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Get over it.

He's basically saying that Obama got in for being black and Hillary got in for being female despite the fact that both suck. He's also accusing McCain of getting it for being old, but I'd say he's not quite right on that one. Old guys have been president before. Former multi-generational military people have been president before too. I'd say McCain isn't really an unusual demographic for a presidential nomination. I'd say McCain got it because there were about four candidates divvying up the conservative vote and he was the only relative liberal.

Alright, I'll explain it in other terms. It is a fair analogy to say that the modern economy is addicted to oil. Their are two ways to break an addiction: cold turkey or gradual withdrawal. The problem is that when we are talking about giving the economy cold turkey, we are talking about causing a depression. However, if we ween the economy off of oil gradually, we can have a much safer process. Coal liquification is to oil as nicotine gum is to cigarettes. As, I said though, McCain isn't necessarily proposing this, but of the three of them, he'd be the least likely to oppose it.

Oh, sorry. We should build the refineries and then plant some trees to suck up the extra CO2. Better?

We're talking about running cars here, not producing electricity. You are correct in that currently the technology is used to produce a fuel for a certain type of power plant, but with changes the process can be used to produce something that is chemically identical to diesel and unleaded gasoline. The pollution when the byproduct is burned in a car is the same as gas from the ground. However, the refining process itself will cause pollution too. It is a significant drawback, but it isn't an unmanageable amount of pollution and not a good enough reason to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas. As I said, it won't permanently get us off oil, but it can buy our economy some more time until better technology is developed. Here's some links: Fischer-Tropsch Process Bergius Process Karrick Process

Oh, Coal to Oil is cheap and efficient. The problem with it was that it produces oil at about $40 per barrel, which at the time it was being researched was expensive. Here and now, a $45 barrel of oil is an extreme bargain. It shifts from a finite fossil fuel which is scarce to a finite fossil fuel which is abundant. But, chiefly, the biggest benefit of the technology is that it is something that exists now in such a way that it can practically fill the national need for a time. The research is done. The distribution system is there. Cars already run on the byproduct. All we need to do is build the coal to oil refineries, and it would lower gas prices practically instantly. Over the long term, it isn't as nice as hydrogen, but what it can do is buy use some more time. Time which researchers can use to perfect hydrogen technology.

The yellow yoshi falling into the pit is there for the sound of the yoshi egg cracking. I have no idea how he actually did it, so it would be incorrect to assume it was difficult. Still, pretty good stuff.

Finland, do you want to talk about your feelings? Seriously, you are so angry in your political stance that there has to be some latent psychological issues that you have and are transferring to Bush.

Is this topic still going on? DU is not potent enough to cause radiation damage in half-gram increments. No radioactive material comes even close to being that concentrated, and if it was, there would be no way for that material to remain such a concentrated source of radiation for any significant amount of time.

Okay, how about you assume that there are intelligent people other than yourself, and then try to analyze the issue based upon that !@#$%^&*umption. The reason why gas prices can rise so much is because gas is a need. People 'stupidly' realize that without gas, they can't drive to work. Electricity is similar, people need it to function and will pay a high price for it. Still, people won't pay any price for neither gas nor electricity, so eventually rising prices will curb demand and curb consumption. The better argument on your end would focus on the consequences of that though. Forcing people to stop use electricity is a nice plan if one is running a dictatorship. Doesn't work to well in civilization though. Also, it would artificially reduce demand, not supply. The good news is new nuke plants are beginning to get built, pending the result of this election. Believe it or not, Bush was very nuclear power friendly, so nuclear power plant manufacturers are rooting for McCain.

Wait, let me re-phrase it. The new doctors wouldn't be less capable in reality. The problem is that lawyers would think the new doctors are less capable and would throw a fit if those doctors ended up working on poor people.