SkyDekker

All well and good until you get to the part where criminals, by their nature, don't give a shit about the laws. You can make all the laws you want, but they're still not gonna give a shit. It's no different than all the airspace restrictions and TSA bullshit in the wake of 9/11, they're still not gonna respect a line on a map or a rule in a book. Nonsense. The system in place just begs criminals to flee from the blue lights. Simple cost benefit analysis. Option 1: pull over, take a felony larceny charge. Option 2: flee and elude, you either get away scot free, or face basically the same penalty as pulling over. So why stop? Of course criminals are going to break the law, that's what they do. But don't think for a second that they don't consider the penalties, or lack thereof. Put real time behind a crime, and it alters their decision making. It may not stop them, but if they're willing to threaten the lives of everyone on the road, at least there'll be some consequences. It will work as well as the "3 strike laws". If you think those have been working great, then I am sure you will think the above will do wonders as well. As far as the above, if you think a truck is worth the risk of innocent bystanders getting killed, I don't think we'll ever get to an agreement on these types of policies. Lastly, if you need your truck for work and you keep all your tools in there, make sure you keep adequate insurance, with a company that works quickly. There is also business interruption insurance available.

it doesn't serve you well to speak for me. Particularly as a petty response to me schooling you. My first cut would be a 70% reduction in military spending over the next decade. If other western powers feel they will miss something in our shift to a defensive posture, they can pony up. Corn subsidies would be cut #2, but take effect in 2 years. BTW, to those referring to the EPA as fat, I'll cite this: http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Super-smog-hits-north-China-city-flights-canceled-4912236.php#photo-5351553 Everyone wants to go after the big money pots. It's easy and doesn't take any brainpower. There's a lot of nickles and dimes out there to dig out as well. Would you tell someone who owed a $50000 loan that blowing $200 a year on something frivolous (like Sat Radio for a ten mile daily commute) was insignificant so go ahead? It's not insignificant to me. Find a few more small 'insignificant' bits and they become very significant. That's how you get a budget under control and out of debt, regardless of being in personal finance or government finance. Every nickle, every cup of coffee, every newspaper counts. I know that because I've done it before. Actually to put your example in roughly the correct scale it is somebody who owes $40,000,000 and you are solving this with cutting the $200 Sat radio bill. Now all you have to do is find another 200,000 of such cuts.

I see this as a cost of having the second amendment.

the gov't is not like a person, more like a large corporation. they cannot operate without credit. do you think there is a vault at Ford with cash to pay employees? or their suppliers? there is not. they use a combination of short and long term fixed income(bonds and notes) instruments to function. so does the the US gov't. it is not realistic to believe you can run a company or a nation on cash. Thank you. Indeed, or if the US needs to repond to a natural disaster and needs access to cash. The notion that with a balanced budget (additional) access to credit is not required is silly.

I don't get it, but isn't the libertarian party all about limited government? Isn't accepting public money for their own benefit against what they stand for? Aren't you asking people to vote for a party so the first thing they can do is go against what they supposedly stand for? How again is this an improvement?

Are we fucking kidding? What idiot thinks that never being able to sell 10 year bonds at or under 3% is a good plan? If we have to do the consumer analogy again - you have a credit card with 15k in revolving debt on it, but at a very low 6.9% rate. This month you decide paying the minimum on time is for suckers and you buy lottery tickets instead. Your rate is increased to 23.9%. Guess how much more you're paying now replacing maturing bonds. (just under 3 months before we get to have this lame debate again) Nobody said anything about the US having 'no' credit (except you). I'm not even sure that is possible. And if you are buying your bonds back (after the balanced budget), then you have a severely reduced need to sell them, don't you? So, you compared that to 'never' being able to sell bonds sub 3%. You seem to have a penchant for extremes. I recommended the very responsible act of living within our means. You compared that with the very irresponsible act of not paying your bills in favor of the lottery. Not sure how that worked out in your head. I'm not trying to be insulting in any manner. I'm just pointing out that you are using superlatives and analogies that don't work. Maybe we're just talking past each other. Not sure. If you go back and read your own post, it is pretty clear you do, at least very strongly imply, that the US would need no credit. I was the one who mentioned that as the flaw in your logic. Kelp is just responding to turtle's trollish post after I gave up having anything resembling a reasonable discussion with turtle.

Uhmm, no. It usually works the other way around. See, if I claim that unicorns that piss champagne live in the centre of the earth, that doesn't become fact until you prove that they don't. Typical liberal thinking. You saying that something that is proven not to exist is fact of it existing. Your statement says that only after I disprove them living at the center of the earth does it become fact that they do. Typical liberal. I can see the ambiguity. Though in context it is pretty clear.

Strange that none of what you write here has anything to do with health insurance going up. It does however, point to the failure of the education system in the states despite union's best attempts. Hmmm. You think that having every letter vetted by a lawyer does not effect costs? No, I think having 2 letters vetted by an on-staff legal department has no effect on the cost. Oh, you think there are only 2 letters in total. That explains it. You may want to re-read the original post. Where does it say different? The bolded part.

Uhmm, no. It usually works the other way around. See, if I claim that unicorns that piss champagne live in the centre of the earth, that doesn't become fact until you prove that they don't.

Strange that none of what you write here has anything to do with health insurance going up. It does however, point to the failure of the education system in the states despite union's best attempts. Hmmm. You think that having every letter vetted by a lawyer does not effect costs? No, I think having 2 letters vetted by an on-staff legal department has no effect on the cost. Oh, you think there are only 2 letters in total. That explains it. You may want to re-read the original post.

So you say that no illegals are in this country? Yup, clearly. As much as you are saying everybody is illegal. Why do I need to prove what the government admit, and any reasonable thinking person knows? You don't, but you asked for a specific number of FF workers needing additional help who are illegal in the US.

You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move! It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is. No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat. There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required. Not "ANY" just not "MORE". Right, but the credit you do need, will get significantly more expensive.

So you say that no illegals are in this country? Yup, clearly. As much as you are saying everybody is illegal.

You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move! It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is. No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat. There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required.

Strange that none of what you write here has anything to do with health insurance going up. It does however, point to the failure of the education system in the states despite union's best attempts. Hmmm. You think that having every letter vetted by a lawyer does not effect costs?

Evidently their history books are not accurate. I believe the description should be Democratic Republic. There was no welfare, or socialist programs. . . . but that doesn't fit his argument. Unless he is talking Pre United States, when we were colonies. Still - I doubt the colonies were socialist republics. As there was taxation without representation . . . hence the whole Boston Tea Party. Holy Uninformed Batman. "Creating" a country is inherently socialist. Establishing a governing body for the greater good of the people.

I think there might be some who would argue that basic health care should not be a business.

Or sometimes those too close are unable to see the big picture.

Arafat Obama The shunning of Malala Yousafzai All shows the joke the Noble Peace Prize is.

Those would generally be the ones that included actual facts and analysis, as opposed to the cute quips and sound bites. And reading and considering doesn't mean wholehearted acceptance. Wendy P. Agreed. However, how many books do you read when you know the ending before you start? In your case it would appear you only read the books which ending you agree with.

No, it's my contention that this Principle is VERY likely an Obama voter indoctrinating young people with his hysteria and abject and irrational fear of guns. It is also my contention that he is very subtley instilling a fear of the Police. And yes, people on both ends of the political spectrum say and do stupid things. This is an example of a very likely Democrat/Obama voter. Do you disagree with that likelihood? And you wonder why people outside the US think the average American is less than smart. The parents complaining, the principle calling, and this assessment all reak of it.

If they're so intelligent why haven't they learned how to fight back? They don't have a 2nd Amendment

If you aren't paying for an online service you use, you're not the customer; you're the product. This.

Yup, Arizona is a real liberal stronghold!

Oh man, what a cheap set up. "We have a winner." It is completely unbelievable to me that you appear to have absolutely no clue what is happening to you in this thread.