glassgowkiss

and whys is the defense spending bigger then during WWII? And why do we have more generals in the military now, then during WWII?

sounds like you are not alone. pretty simple, lots of people want cuts, as long as it doesn't effect them.

From CBC: republican ticket Americans like to see themselves as a nation of rugged individualists, but they are just as addicted to government spending programs as Canadians, and Europeans for that matter. The simpletons who show up at Tea Party rallies warning Barack Obama to "keep his government hands off their Social Security" are perfect examples. They proclaim themselves dedicated to spending cuts, as long as the government doesn't take away any of their entitlements, or cut the military, which of course accounts for most government spending. Farmers demand that government "get off their backs," then serenely collect the big agricultural subsidies so zealously defended by their elected, often Republican politicians. Jobless Americans look to government for unemployment benefits and extensions of those benefits when they run out. Most people depend on the government to backstop their mortgages. And of course, Medicare, with its ballooning costs, has been a big political untouchable. The fact is, you need more health care as you age, whatever your ideology. And a life-threatening illness tends to tame any hard-line view about "socialistic medicine." There are no atheists in foxholes, as the saying goes. Nonetheless, with Paul Ryan on the Republican ticket, that long-awaited adult conversation may actually get underway. Certainly, Romney has clarified the ballot question: Are Americans so dedicated to small government and lower taxes that they are willing to sacrifice their entitlements?

actually, internet-wunderkind, "we the people" are the first 3 fucking words of the constitution! (far catchier than jefferson's "in the course") actually you are full of shit, it's the preamble to the constitution. It's obvious you don't know the difference and what it means. The actual document, as it was originally written, includes... I thought your point was that "We the people" was in the Declaration of Independence? Yes this is the point. While "we the people" is part of declaration, it is not part of the constitution. preamble is not part of the constitution. the same if you read a science book or a novel, an introduction to the book isn't really a part of it. It might inform you what prompted it, what's the idea the author is trying to achieve. As a legal document, preamble to the constitution is not a part of this legal document. is it so friggin hard to understand? The constitution starts with "All legislative powers".

my point exactly. do you see it below or above article 1? That is why it's called preamble. From Wikipedia: "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." It also states: "The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[1] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[2] except as regards frivolous litigation.[3]" Now, do you want to continue this argument?

actually, internet-wunderkind, "we the people" are the first 3 fucking words of the constitution! (far catchier than jefferson's "in the course") actually you are full of shit, it's the preamble to the constitution. It's obvious you don't know the difference and what it means.

you can always show up in squamish and join ranks. bouldering tomorrow, climbing sunday

Of course at this day and age popular vote would give much more fair results. Nobody can really give a clear formula for how the electoral college assigns the votes for the states. The numbers are taken from the census, which is collected only every 10 years. We all know how population can fluctuate within 10 year period. But the reality of majority vote would give actual people unfair advantage and it would much harder to manipulate election process. I would also say that 2 party system outlived itself long time ago. This society is far to diverse to be represented fairly only by two points of view. one more issue,- the election cycle should be limited (like it in Europe) to say 90-100 days total. we are now in constant state of elections, which makes the legislature the way it is.

Funny- "we the people" isn't even in the constitution. It's from declaration of independence, which has nothing to do with the constitution of the US, kind of ironic that the fucking foreigner has to point this out. Constitution is way outdated and until it is re-written greedy corporations will be having a free ticket to pay to greedy politicians. Do we need electoral college? That is one of the relics, that are fucking this system up. Things change, societies change, times change. How a 200 year old document can rule the modern society?

Yeah, stupid Constitutional Democracy. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers - what pointless ideas. citizens united- now that is your idea of checks and balances? people writing a constitution did not have a clue about modern media, corporate culture, money in the politics of modern era, lobbying. If they had, they would be prophets predicting future. how the fuck can supreme court decide about constitutionality of something, that did not exist 200 years ago.

This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document!

Eric, the total cost should include revenue lost from factories production shutdown. I am not talking about the cost of line installation. The total cost would include revenue losses from power outages, total cost of repairs over period of time. The cost of dig, cable is one part, but these other parts also matter. Imagine Intalco shutting down for 2 weeks due to lack of power?

That is bullshit statement. there is a uber narrow group of high rollers from banking industry and financial sector, but a vast majority of people in NYC just scrape by. In general Canada is way more in line with fundamentals then the US.

I would like to see a total cost analysis for areas like Florida, New England or Buffalo NY, where we have yearly events (like hurricanes and huge snow storms), shutting down entire areas for weeks at the time. In October 2006 Buffalo was hit by early winter storm, and the city was basically shut down for a week. If you consider economic impact of shutting down production in most facilities for one or two week period, underground power lines would be paid for in no time at all.

Positive power of negative thinking.

there is nothing "stupid" about the question; the responder OTOH... if you don't understand the subject matter and start voicing your opinions- that is definition of stupid. when were you in canada last time, anyway?

First of all, do you understand what minimum wage is? so the question if it is sufficient is kind of stupid- isn't it!? But if you do the math, it's much easier to pay for essentials if you earn $12 vs $9 (which I guess is one of the highest in the union). But because the minimum wage is set at this level, automatically the median wage is much higher. In general I see that in Canada most of my dirtbag friends are in many cases better off then low middle class working folks here in WA state.

Unlike in the US, in Canada there was a recent credit regulation tightening. Longest loan term 25 years, equity loans- only up to 80% of value. No zero down credit. Mind you also in B.C. minimum wage is $12, so the bar is set much higher then in WA state.

My own brother is a friggin anti-semitic bigot. I guarantee you, we were not raised that way. I would not blame these things just on upbringing.

did you change your diet or something? we agreed twice in one week!

Thanks for posting a pm without asking, asshole! This crosses the line, that never should be crossed. Openly arguing is one thing, posting a pm is another.

"White Pee" a.k.a. "Number Three" no, he likes "the stranger" style.

surely, this would make top 10 most stupid quotes of the week!

No, I talked to a couple of people. The video did not make it, because it it was about female riders. Yes, it's hard to cater a story line to a 15 year old, who thinks cartoons are great. I opened a couple of issues of "Dirt" mag- it's way worst then climbing press of the 80's. There is one picture of a woman riding. Not a single picture of a woman in any of the hundreds of adds. Maybe nascar or dirt bike scene are only few sports more sexist then DH biking. Watched 2 women doing Crabapple hits in Whistler, along with the guys, one of the m busting table tops equal to any guy out there. Do you even hear about it? it's a bro-bra industry, kind of stupid nevertheless if you limit your customer base to 45% of the population. No, it's not the point of my rant. The point is, that any activity where a fat fuck can do ok is not a real sport. Yes, aid climbing is not a sport either- same principle. I can tell you this is the case around here. DH'ers here tend to be young rich kid pissants with a penchant for misogyny. wow, we agreed on something! a start!

That's cause you climbed it with team molasses in aid climbing you need a fitness level of a truck driver. last time i stopped at flying j plaza it looked like a bunch of wales beached themselves. then i realized they all drove trucks. aid climbing can compete with golf and poker of physical level.