Bignugget

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/19/tech/innovation/amazon-apollo-engines/index.html?hpt=us_bn4 Psh. Apollo 11 booster rockets? Boosted to where, Hollywood?? I do love these rich ass CEOs who become treasure hunters, and pretty cool they found them almost on the anniversary.

Just out of curiosity, do you know where your shoes were made? Do you know who made most of the household items in your home? Hate to bring you back to reality, but its that same unskilled malnourished worker This is just a product of western capitalism, its funny to see people so upset because its the arabs doing it

Their conditions sound pretty fucked up. Sounds like Dubai has 'shitty' human rights, what a surprise. What I found a bit interesting is they sell the rural workers on making 300GBP a month, get to Dubai and only get paid 150GBP a month...but that is still like 2x the average Bengali income....and I read a couple sources that said $50 a month is considered a decent income for rural families...only 32GBP a month... Not a terrible deal....if they got paid of course, and weren't forced to live in squalor. "Despite the rapid economic growth, about 43.3% of the country still lives below the international poverty line which means living on less than $1.25 per day" http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/BGD.html It certainly makes you think twice about getting your ass all the way up in the worlds biggest building that was built by some under-nourished, unpaid, unskilled Bengali migrant worker who is forced to sleep in his own shit. He's probably not the most safety minded, quality control conscious worker around.

I always had trouble with this "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. Response to a question from the audience during a meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association on (7 November 1948), as quoted in a 1994 affidavit by Sam Moskowitz. This statement is similar or identical to several statements Hubbard is reported to have made to various individuals or groups in the 1940s. Variants include: The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall — but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!" L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; as quoted by Eshbach in his autobiography Over My Shoulder: Reflections On A Science Fiction Era (1983) ISBN 1-880418-11-8 Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion! As reported to Mike Jittlov by Theodore Sturgeon as a statement Hubbard made while at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society clubhouse in the 1940s. Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion. As quoted in the Los Angeles Times (27 August 1978) Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion. As quoted in the article "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult" by Eugene H. Methvin. Reader's Digest (May 1980) I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money — he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult. Sam Merwin, Editor of Thrilling Science Fiction magazine Winter of 1946-47; quoted in Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (1987) by Russell Miller Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion. Neison Himmel, briefly a roommate of Hubbard in Pasadena during the fall of 1945, in a 1986 interview, quoted in Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (1987) by Russell Miller" Also found it pretty amusing they kept making Biblical references. You would think they could make up their own version of biblical plagues and parting of seas.

Like what? Hahaha. Touche'

now shift this back in time a little and have Sandy come through on week 2. I'm confused. Was game more prevalent in NYC after Sandy? But sure, lets add some sort of natural disaster into the show. A hurricane sounds good enough. The premise of the show is still sound. Can one team survive through the disaster while not procuring firearms and going on a hunt more cheaply than the team that goes out and acquires some weapons to use hunting game to survive? I'd watch. Id wager I could get food from the Red Cross during the disaster more cheaply than you could buy a hunting permit. But I would watch either way.

I'm with you Lets make it a reality TV show. We give two teams each some predetermined goal to survive, and a predetermined amount of money with which to do it. Like: Survive on $500 for 3 months in NYC. (just food obviously, we will put them into like a REAL WORLD house) One team is allowed to shop at Shop N Save, (or the local discount grocer) and the other is required to hunt for dinner. (legally?) I would think they would have to hunt legally since its gonna be filmed. This sounds like a fuckin' winner idea. You would have both sides tuning in to watch. If you are right and its cheaper to go get the gun, permits and travel to where there is actually still game to shoot (NYC might be a tough hunt) then I will buy you a beer, and admit my narrow mindedness clouded me to the truth. We will be rich either way after the show takes off.

My mom raised me too well to be offended by someone on the internet. If the worst you can say to me is my viewpoint that, guns serve no purpose except to end life, is narrow.... Ill wear that hat proudly.

Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing. Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY. It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right. To be sure I understand your position: If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion? No. My position is that the issue of "need" is irrelevant unless there is a dictator deciding what the "needs" are (I.e., Kim Jon I'll deciding that only the North Korean military "needs" food). The queation is nonsensible. Think about it - who needs skydiving? Don't need it? Then let's not have it. Who needs pot? Nobody. Alcohol? Nobody needs it (short of those with chronic dependence but at a point in their lives they didn't need it). Who needs a motorcycle? A three bedroom house? A lawn. A backpack? A mobile phone? Access to the internet? An education? Air conditioning? A brassiere? Human need only a few things. Food. Water. Shelter. Breathable air. Warmth. And a place to relieve oneself. Other than that, to suggest that something should not be available because it isn't "needed" is silly. Who "needs" a blowjob? Nobody. And for a while there was a ban on the "infamous crime against nature." The "need" was limited to procreative sex and thherefore in missionary. There. Nothing else is "needed." We came to our senses and realized that it's not about "need." It's that people can do what they want. The whole "needs" concept is extremist. Guns as a "need." No. A cop doesn't need a gun. Unless it's a "need" then it's unnecessary? Who "needs" Piers Morgan? Nobody. So get rid of him, right? No. Freedoms mean that we can meet our desires as well as our needs. If our desires harm others, then socety can lay down the hammer. Freedom has risks. Perhaps that's why people want to have guns. TY for clarifying. "If our desires harm others, then socety can lay down the hammer. Freedom has risks. Perhaps that's why people want to have guns." No doubt. That's why we have invented all sorts of horrible ways to kill each other. (bio/chem/nukes/electric chairs/injections/gassing etc etc). 'Laying the hammer down' as it were. Pretty fucked up but I guess that's how freedom is meant to be. Ill still live inside my narrow viewpoint of the world where I can get my food at Shop N Save, and no one has a "desire" to have a weapon capable of killing lots of little kids really fast. Just seems like a better version of freedom to me.

Rights aren't about satisfying a person's need? It's like asking, "why do you need to ask this question?" You don't NEED to ask it. But you CAN. You WANTED to. And preventing a person from something because that person doesn't "need" it is a pretty dangerous thing. Who "needs" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who "needs" to have the right to petition? Answer - NOBODY. It's about a right. Not a need. Not a desire. A right. To be sure I understand your position: If there was no 2nd amendment, you would not hold this opinion?

We control access to fast cars. Via prohibitive cost, licensing and insurance requirements and laws prohibiting dangerous operation. Evidence supporting my conclusion that guns are a better weapon of death than a fast car: Columbine Aurora Jonesboro The Senator who got shot in the face the little school kids etc etc etc None of those killers sat down and decided a Ferrari was the way to go about killing their targets. Maybe you know better than me WHY they chose the gun over the Ferrari (or the parachute which could also be used to kill someone)?

Lol. Good times.

Only because Jesus said its the right thing to do.

Opt out is an incorrect way to think of it. Your employer currently pays a fair chunk of your health insurance premium. For that they are allowed a tax credit in the amount of the health premiums they pay. If they (companies with over 50 employees) choose to STOP providing health insurance, and force their employees into the new individual marketplace....they have several things that can happen. Those are detailed here: http://www.sba.gov/content/employers-with-50-or-more-employees Basically if they stop offering healthcare coverage, and you are able to go shop it in the marketplace, the company will be fined an amount designed to offset the tax credit you as an individual will be getting from shopping in the marketplace. Those fines, will NOT be tax deductible. So if the company decides not to offer coverage, it will be because it is MORE profitable to stop getting all the tax credits they get now, and replace those will non tax deductible fines. could it happen to some companies that way?? Maybe. But I am pretty certain Walmart will just keep paying some health premiums, and tax deduct all that shit to reduce their tax burden.

HEYYYYYYYY RUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *echo echo* CAN YOU HEAR ME WAYYYYYY OVER THERE ON THE RIGHT? "WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a new proposed rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) in the Federal Register today and made available background materials and a prototype geospatial tool. AFFH refers to the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s obligation for state and local governments to improve and achieve more meaningful outcomes from fair housing policies, so that every American has the right to fair housing, regardless of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status. (emphasis added) “This proposed rule represents a 21st century approach to fair housing, a step forward to ensuring that every American is able to choose to live in a community they feel proud of – where they have a fair shot at reaching their full potential in life,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. “For the first time ever, HUD will provide data for every neighborhood in the country, detailing the access African American, Latino, Asian, and other communities have to local assets, including schools, jobs, transportation, and other important neighborhood resources that can play a role in helping people move into the middle class. Long-term solutions will involve various strategies, such as helping people gain access to different neighborhoods and channeling investments into underserved areas. ” The proposed rule was drafted in response to a 2010 GAO report and numerous requests from stakeholders, advocates, and HUD program participants seeking clear guidance and technical assistance. The proposed rule refines existing requirements so the individuals, organizations, and state and local governments implementing HUD programs better understand their requirements under the Fair Housing Act and have the tools they need to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, ensuring that every American has the opportunity to live in the community of their choice without facing discrimination. "

No. Normally they don't wait to break the door down, or tase the fuck out of the people inside. I would say they showed more restraint than normal. I remember a story about a year ago where they raid a guys house (legitimately I believe, or at least, the right address) and they shoot his beagle dog that is locked up in a kennel.....you know for safety reasons. Lol. So yea I would say these guys did OK, pretty restrained.

Lol. Again, that article is nothing but nonsense. The proposed amendment was nonsense. The policy issued to work around the proposed amendment allows business to continue as usual for Congress. Just like business continues as usual for Apple, Microsoft, Monsanto, Walmart, Google, Verizon, ATT, Disney ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC. None of those employees are going to be 'forced' to change anything, and so why should (a tiny portion) of employees of the Federal govt be forced to change?

Whether premiums will rise (for everyone including the Federal govt.) is not the topic of this thread. Its the (false) premise that somehow you are 'forced' into the 'Obamacare' network and that Congress is getting some sort of special pass to not be forced in. Utter nonsense. Could premiums rise across the board and some companies be priced out of their current coverage? Maybe, lets make a thread and discuss that instead of this nonsense.

"Funny how Congress is already getting themselves and their staffers out of it. " Out of what? That makes no sense. Congress is no different than any other federal employee, who ALREADY has health insurance they can purchase through their employer (the federal government). No one is going to be FORCED to quit their EXISTING healthcare plan and join the 'Obamacare' network. When Mastercard, Google, Apple, Microsoft are FORCED to give up whatever healthcare plans they currently provide, and purchase insurance from "Obamacare".....then you will have a point about Congress not playing by the same rules. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/ "Any job-based health plan you currently have qualifies as minimum essential coverage. You don't need to change to a Marketplace plan in order to avoid the fee that uninsured people may have to pay for 2014. If you'd like to explore Marketplace coverage options you can, but there are several important things to consider."

I do not know everything there is to know about 'Obamacare.' I also do not know everything there is to know about the private medical insurance plans that each of my two children have. But I have read, what I beleive to be far more than most people, about 'O-care' and I have spent a considerable amount to time discussing the private medical insurance plans that my children have. IMO 'O-care' is a much better improvement when compared to what they have at this time. I am of the opinion that employer provided medical plans are going to be covering less & less, with or without 'O-care.' IMO it is right up there with employer provided pensions, they are going the way of the Dodo bird. While the feds are getting a fairly good deal ( and I am one of them as a fed retiree ), IMO overall 'O-care' will be better for this country. YMMV JerryBaumchen You could very well be correct. I was simply pointing out to Rush that he won't be "forced" to leave his current health insurance and buy into the new network. The new network is designed to OPEN access to people without insurance. Personally I agree, it will probably be much cheaper for me as well, I buy my insurance privately since I am a small business owner....I don't have a giant employer like the Fed negotiating on my behalf for sweeter rates. I will probably do a lot better under the new plan. But no one is forcing poor old Rush to change. Same way they aren't forcing Congress to change.

Yea perhaps annihilated is a better description. Point taken.

What is a lie? A lie is something said where the speaker knows it is false You are saying that Bush and all those I posted the quotes for were lying? Ok Prove it Prove that they knew SH did NOT have WMD’s when they said these things And remember, they were saying those same things years before Bush was even running for office and was unknown nationally at the time In your court brother You need to prove intentional deceit to make your case Or do just hate Presidents who are not Democrats "lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood. 4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers." I will direct your attention to #3. I also noticed you skipped over my reply where I completely decimate your thread. Kudos.

So you're on record as wanting USPA to petition the FAA for more regulation? Be careful what you wish for. not more regulation just make sure the current rigs meet the existing TSO requirement You know...by asking nicely. not by regulation.

Like this chick "Marijuana stops child's severe seizures" http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Fuckin potheads. Ill await your super intelligent retort.