JayB

When it's possible for a PFC or his equivalent to gain access to diplomatic cables, etc - then leaks of this magnitude were practically inevitable. If there's anyone at fault here - it's the folks in charge of keeping the information secure. I don't think that you can construct a legal response against Assange that wouldn't grant the state a whole raft of repressive powers that they could use against journalists, etc - so that particular cure would be way worse than this specific manifestation of the information-security disease. Getting back to the constitutionality of the bill - does the Commerce Clause of the constitution really grant the government the power to purchase a commercial product as a condition of your existence?

Interesting - seems like there's a legitimate civil liberties angle there but the ACLU is of course free to focus on whatever it wants to.

Does the ACLU support an individual mandate based on its reading of the commerce clause?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013671441_pensions14m.html

Looks like the group replaced the guys own cells with stem cells that lack a functional version one of the two primary surface receptors that HIV uses to latch onto and enter T-Cells, and the particular strain of virus infecting this guy could not infect the new T-cells. Sounds like the concern was that the virus that the guy was infected with, which binds that particular receptor, would mutate until it could latch onto the other receptor (still present on the new T-cells) but that hasn't happened. If it's possible to generate or find stem cells that lack a functional version of either receptor that may help with this problem. I'm not sure if everyone would call anything but complete clearance of the virus from every cell in the body a cure - but that's a much finer distinction than anyone suffering from the disease would make. Seems like it has the potential to be a big step forward if it's reproducible in other patients.

Spent ~10 days on the Colorado Plateau in March and drove back to Seattle with the same bag of ice in the Cooler that we drove out there with. Chase the sun and be prepared for some mighty chilly nights and/or snow.

Much better to eliminate the basic health plan, social services, etc? Virtually everyone in the private sector has had to make do with 401(K) plans - is there any particular reason why there should be a special exemption for public sector employees - even at the cost of de-funding parks, social services, medicaid, etc, etc? Is that really progressive?

I want to hear more about this state of anarchy that includes legislatures, courts, law enforcement, contract law, etc that you've been talking about. Connect the dots between ending prohibition, tarriffs, and subsidies and a Hobbesian free-for-all. Take your time.

you aren't just arguing for market economies, you are arguing for capitalist anarchy and claiming the only alternatives are gulags. Don't move the goal post. crickets ... Can you define capitalist anarchy? Does is include things like contract law, etc? Are the folks arguing for free trade really out there advocating for the wholesale abandonment of all commercial, criminal, and civil law and all of the institutions of government when they argue on behalf of ending the tarriff barriers designed to give a free handout to GM, or the ethanol subsides that give corn farmers a public windfall? How about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction. Is that the mark of an anarchist as well? Do tell.

Me too!

wtf does this have to do with this discussion? My interpretation is - really, if you travel around a bit, you, me, we're quite privileged. Doesn't say we couldn't do much better as a country, but the constant pegging-the-meter hyperbole hides whatever message you're trying to get across while everyone winces. Ya know, like fingernails on a blackboard. [video:youtube]

Cool. I don't think I could repeat your path to prosperity and personal fulfillment via real estate investment any more than I could repeat the routes that you put up - for all of the above reason - but it's great that you've been able to make it work for you.

i think it speaks more to their myopic vision and spirituality and, as such, might elicit pity and empathy more than agitation. I'll settle for empiricism. The funny thing is - there's always been much more tolerance for, protection of, and outlets for every kind of vision and spirituality and all of their manifestations in societies with market economies than the various failed utopias that claques of intellectuals have attempted to build from scratch.

my glibly stated point was that there are other places to park capital- besides into the hands of those you alluded to- places where one would probably receive more than a few percentage points of interest off a depleting investment. but, your strategy is probably fine as long as you love your work! In which case you wouldn't be worrying so much about "retirement". Worrying and planning are two different things, kemosabe. Much of the background info/knowledge was acquired on the job. Not sure that falls into the worry category either, but whatever. Having said that, listening to someone who has arrived at retirement age call in to check on their balances literally start weeping over the state of their finances does focus the mind. I'm guessing you aren't out there playing with leveraged bets on various derivatives or acquiring big stashes of commodities so you must be referring to real estate? It's worked well for some people, sure - I just don't have the risk-tolerance required to play with that kind of leverage, much less the specialized knowledge you need, nor the interest, much less the inclination to personally tend to an income properties so it's not really something I'm interested in outside of what I might eventually buy for my own shelter. Think I'd just go for a REIT if I wanted to sink more money into real-estate. Much credit to you if you've made it work for you though.

If you can afford to "retire" at age 50, you were not taxed enough, and have obviously cheated and screwed over those less fortunate than you. Cough it up. You wannabes hate it when a libtard beats you at your own fetish game LOL. I think it's great that our society makes it possible for people to do something that other people find so valuable that they're willing to pay them large amounts of money for whatever it is that they're making or selling - and they can retire early if they want to. It's not entirely clear that that's true in your case, but you seem to enjoy dropping coyish hints about your wealth, and then demuring when it comes to for specifics. If you made a bunch of money and can live off of your wealth without working - great, congratulations. Really. If not - hey it's the internet - and there's nothing stopping you from claiming to be the reincarnation of King Tut if that makes you happy.

If you can afford to "retire" at age 50, you were not taxed enough, and have obviously cheated and screwed over those less fortunate than you. Cough it up.

Woah - looks like there was some late night editing going on up there in some of those posts. Neat. The claim was that once you eliminate profits - you eliminate all of the human foibles that scourge hell-holes like, say, Switzerland and wind up with harmonious utopias like....Cuba. Banish profits and greed, lusting after power, etc disappear.

hmmm. your initial post regarding projected returns sounded a little more authoritative than simply being info gleaned from some on-line wealth-o-meter. my hope is that your general political analyses do not follow a similar process of development? (I would argue that most people's do....) having said that, it would be interesting to know the particulars of said party's actual finances. I think anyone who claims financial independence automatically generates some interest in the particulars. It's actually waaay less authoritative than the online wealth-0-mether since the folks quoting immediate annuity payouts will actually have to fork over something like the quoted amount of money every year if someone buys a contract from them and hands over the lup-sum balance that they requested. After looking at a ton of different outputs from various retirement income simulators, considering historical bond-yields and equity returns, etc, etc, etc - most of the values seemed to converge at something like ~$1,000,0000 per ~$50K inflation indexed income stream if you retire between 60-65 - if you want greater than a 50% chance of outliving your money. So - that's the ballpark that I go with, and I increase the amount by an arbitrary fudge-factor for folks that are younger. Not sure how close to the mark that is - but I'm confident that no one who retires in the late 40's/early 50's can get a $40-60K income stream that will last as long as they do with less than a million in the bank, and I'd personally want at least double that amount in the bank, if not more before I'd feel comfortable leaving the work force at that age. I think that this retiremement income simulator: TRowePrice.com/RetirementCalculator uses Monte-Carlo simulation to generate income-stream predictions - at least it did when I used to work there way back when.

Central banks guaranteeing one-way bets for creditors/bondholders is the surest way to expand the herd of financiers and guarantee them returns that exceed their economic value! Just glad to see that the great seductress that is the market economy can tempt even the most committed ideologues.

where do you come up with this? Guesstimate. Plug the age/assets into online annuity quote thingies or monte-carlo simulators and it'll probably give you a figure in this ballpark.

Who but a mean-spirited neocon regressive would dismiss all economic activity revolves around something other than expanding production? I think it's great that people who, say, want to trade some of the proceeds of a lucrative divorce settlement for ready cash can do so, or have enough wealth to indulge in profoundly - dare I say - bourgeois pursuits like attending sporting events where spend money to watch multi-millionaires play baseball!

Aren't you the guy that rarely missed an opportunity to inform everyone here that you'd retired early on the proceeds of stock-options grants? Or was that someone else? what would it change if what you say were true? Easy - then he'd be one of the "wealthiest American's have really honored us with their exemplary service, compassion, fairness, gratitude, and basic values in recent years..." As a ballpark I'd say it'd take ~ 1.25-1.5 million in liquid assets to generate an inflation-indexed income stream between 40 and 60K per year for a guy in his late 40's/early fifties, which is pretty much the minimal retirement income necessary to afford a SFR in Phinney-centered lifestyle after you've paid taxes, utilities, etc, etc. Anyone in that age group that had that much liquid net worth would certainly qualify as "wealthy" using any reasonable definition of the word. Actually - I think the classical definition of "wealthy" is anyone who can afford to quit working and live a comfortable life on the income stream their assets/investments generate. I have no idea if Tvashie actually has that kind of coin socked away or not - but all of the off-topic comments about being able to "do whatever the fuck I want, "Chief Technical Officer for a tech company" etc, etc, etc, seemed as though they were an extremely *cough* subtle way for him to advertise the fact that he was independently wealthy.

Modern day China, liar? Um...that's pretty much a wholesale FOR PROFIT venture. The IRON CURTAIN? You're comparing the VA, Kaiser Permanente, and the health care sustems of the rest of the civilized world to the IRON CURTAIN? For real? One thing that is always missing in your posts is sustainability. Never, ever shows up. Hence your support for the Green Revolution - and the most unsustainable (and heavily subsidized) agricultural practices in history that produced it. Goodbye topsoil, ocean health, fossil acquifers, public health, and local control of communities. HELLO PROFITS. Just one example of the what's missing in the asset stripping parasitism that is the modern, national/multinational corporation. Also, it seems that our wealth was ON CREDIT, no? Yeah...just a wee omission there. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for capitalism. Local capitalism, where there's actually a cause and effect relationship between what the company does and the communities affected by its actions. Yours, however, is a short term worship of consumptive materialism ('wealth' according to your ilk), at the expense of the environment, culture, community, public health, egalitarianism, and social stability, of course. Even in the face of planet wide environmental and economic collapse, the good liar stands by his guns. "Oh, just ignore the last 3 years of data..." What we now enjoy is a society where everyone can buy cheap Chinese crap on credit, and everyone is afraid of losing their job, health care, privacy, education, and home. Great. We now have a culture so paranoid that its willing to jump on a fascist bandwagon, thanks in large part to the very same avarice and manipulation practiced by the corporate interests you so love. By all means, however, keep comparing even the slightest corporate regulation to the Iron Curtain or, why not go the distance and go for North Korea? No, not a rhetorical trick at all. When sustainability is considered, all of your arguments fail miserably and obviously. Funny how that works. Love the thread creep here. I just thought it might be instructive to compare the death toll from direct acts of violence conducted by sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, (restaurants, gas stations, organic llama farms, dental practices) to those conducted by governments over any interval in modern history. Sounds like you're much more interested in the Green Revolution and sustainability though! Neat. Do carry on about the evils of the Green Revolution! If there's one thing we've seen throughout history - it's been that the lower crop yields per acre are, and the closer people are to death by starvation, the more concerned they are with things like their carbon footprint.

So - either you made enough money in short while to generate a passive income stream sufficient to retire on - in which case you would qualify under any standard definition of "wealthy." ...Or you made enough in whatever capacity you were working in to take a long vacation - in which case the "do whatever the fuck I wan't" claim should have come with a footnote that said "Until I run out of money and have to go back to work again." All of the shitheels that I hang with will collectively exhale a big sigh of relief when they learn that both you and your peeps are so unconcerned with money that - aside from repeatedly dropping multiple hints that you've made so much of it that you no longer have to work (apropos of nothing, at every opportunity) - it would never have any effect on your modesty or any other dimension of your personality. They'll be even more relieved to hear that your political viewpoint will remain unchanged, no matter how big the hypothetical windfall under discussion may be. Phew!

Hmm - seem to remember something about being a chief technical officer of some concern or another and making enough money to quit working and "do whatever the fuck I want" being bandied about some time ago - but I don't care enough to bother searching for the said claims.