justinb138

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    3,115

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by justinb138

  1. justinb138
    Since it's pretty obvious you're not going to read the linked info:
  2. justinb138
    Perhaps you've not heard of UPS and FedEx? They send letters and packages from one address to another, just as USPS does. Perhaps you've never heard of the private express statutes .
  3. justinb138
    Ok... what does the sex scandel have to do with this? To all..... do you really think that this health care bill should be granted under the constitution? If it passes I will deal with it but to bring back a point.... in what way is it okay to put in wording that states it cannot be changed or undone? Can you confirm this wording is actually in there? I looked up the pages mentioned earlier and all I found was what appeared to be limits on debate, etc..
  4. justinb138
    1. Ignoring the fact that the US government has made it illegal to compete with the USPS at sending regular mail, you're comparing FedEx 2Day to USPS mail? A more appropriate comparison might be Priority mail, which runs $5 or so, and it might get there in 2-5 days. 2. You can schedule a FedEx or UPS pickup. And I've never had to wait in a UPS or FedEx store. The USPS solution to people complaining about wait times? Remove the clocks. Their response: Don't for get that mailing a letter only appears to cost $.44 - if you ignore the 7 billion dollar budget deficit.
  5. justinb138
    You need to do some reading. You can't argue with willfully ignorant either.
  6. justinb138
    Looks like you have the beginning of what could be a very interesting craigslist posting.
  7. justinb138
    You can't mooch off something that was voluntarily given. You complain about "unearned wealth" yet you seem willing to take the earnings of others for your own benefit. I'd say nice try, but I don't think that even qualifies.
  8. justinb138
    Nice! I am thinking about getting one of those next year
  9. justinb138
    Just because it wasn't earned by them, doesn't mean it wasn't earned. If you think double-taxation is libertarian, you need to do some reading. You want unearned income? Why don't you look up EIC.
  10. justinb138
    Want to get rid of the drug cartels? Get rid of their money. How do you do that? Easily - legalize domestic growing and sales, and let the market work. 1. Costs would plummet as supply increases and suppliers compete for business - reducing the income of the drug cartels. 2. Demand for foreign-grown product decreases due the increased domestic supply, driving their business, and therefore income down even further. At this point, the cartels would have to compete with (legal) domestic suppliers, leaving them at a great disadvantage, as importation carries with it increased costs, and increased risk, effectively pricing them out of the market. The only downside I can see to it is that it's not going to win any elections.
  11. justinb138
    "Beginners" kit? Is there an advanced one you have to qualify for or something?
  12. justinb138
    I wouldn't consider him an average person by any means (nor were people flying planes into buildings, who killed much more without guns as well). But none of recent murderers was anything close. So bombers aren't average, but a crazy kid that kills 32 people is average?
  13. justinb138
    http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144699/stephen_king_meets_the_estate_tax Yes, it would be an absolute tragedy to only let them tax someone's income once.
  14. justinb138

    The NFL thread

    justinb138 replied to LisaH's topic in The Bonfire

    Go Cowboys!
  15. justinb138
    How about: 1. Stop spending so much f*cking money. 2. When tax revenues are up, save some money.
  16. justinb138
    If by 'facts' you mean 'opinions', then great.
  17. justinb138
    I'm still trying to understand how an "amendment" gets to be 700+ pages.
  18. justinb138
    And some of us view parachute manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, and engineers differently than armed criminals, and plan accordingly. Surely you can see that making safe parachutes, airplanes, and bridges in the interest of both the builder and the user, while the interest of criminals rarely involves the well-being of their victims, right?
  19. justinb138
    Going to ignore that last part of my statement? Or do you think that power and control isn't in the interest of the government?
  20. justinb138
    How is Exxon-Mobil funding the Heartland Institute any different than than governments funding the AGW scientists? Like Exxon-Mobil, the governments have a vested interest in the conclusions of the research - no AGW and they lose their excuse for more power and control. I'm sure they wouldn't go to great lengths to protect that.
  21. justinb138
    So if someone is being held at gunpoint, they're supposed to blow a whistle? What's the first reaction of the gunman going to be? I'm guessing to stop the person from blowing the whistle. The fact that they're holding a gun is probably going to make that a pretty easy and convenient task.
  22. justinb138
    1. Please don't confuse the neo-cons and the "tea baggers", they're typically two different groups of people, despite the fact that they co-exist in the same party. 2. Have you actually been to one of these events? I think you might find there are people there that would agree with you on a few things. The few I've attended seemed to be focused on government spending, and were not very supportive of the wars. There is no party that's concerned with fiscal responsibility. The few I've seen that truly believe in it are quickly labeled far-right extremists by both the neo-con right as well as the left. Also, anyone looking to politicians for family values needs to have their head examined. I could care less who my congressman is banging, and I really don't care what they're preaching, provided they're not trying to pass laws based on such preaching, and they're doing their job.
  23. justinb138
    Why, there have been more attacks by AQ in Europe than in the US in the past eight years. To put this burden all on the US amazes me. But, if we're destined to bear that burden, then I'd rather no apologize for it. I'm not "putting it all on the US", just saying that we shouldn't ignore the fact that actions (specifically foreign policy made by people we elected), can piss alot of people off. By "bear that burden", do you mean accept the fact that our past foreign policy decisions might have given terrorists motive to attack us?
  24. justinb138
    I'd agree with that correction.
  25. justinb138
    Which is more politically convenient ? A. "It's certainly possible that our government's interventionist foreign policy has given the terrorists motive for attacking the United States." or B. "They hate us for our freedom." Option A would require that politicians admit that they might bear some responsibility for the situation. Which option do you think most would choose? Please don't think that I'm saying attacks against the US are justified, I'm just saying that our foreign policy may have been a motivating factor behind them.