Don't usually get to see this angle at St. Maarten, wind usually going the other way. Normal approach is over the water, and take off in the same direction, towards the center of the island. In fact, you have to juke on takeoff to avoid the mountains (see in the backdrop of this video), which is rather troublesome in a large jetliner. Made more so by the fact the runway at St. Maarten is only 7,150 ft. Of note, the recommended take off length for the fully laden 747 is around 10k feet (it is less, but that is what they recommend), so you can bet those aren't fully loaded. And if you have an engine failure, even just a single, your boned...can't abort, can't fly.

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?


I'll be honest...I don't give a shit I just want you to shut up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.


I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?

My friend who grew up in Nigeria just posted this in the comments when I posted this to facebook:

"I posted it last night also. Then it had just about 10k views. Now, it has 11M !! Wow the power of social media. Which brings me to a sobering thought. Whether we like it or not this video is a propaganda tool. Before yesterday, I knew very little about Kony. Today, I find myself hating him. I don't even know enough to hold an objective position. And I'm sure I'm not alone on this. Of course kidnapping and slaughtering children is awful!!! But having lived the first half of my life in Nigeria, a political environment closer to Uganda's than the US', I know the evil is often committed by both rebel guerillas and government troops. But, it's usually the govts that have the luxury of relationship with the west to encourage development of videos like this. So I'm not saying Kony is a saint. I hope he gets caught and prosecuted. I'm just catching myself from the gullibility of falling for a propaganda video. However well intentioned. Hopefully others will do the same."

And here's my response:

"I couldn't agree with you more. Well said and, even more importantly, we considered. Gives you a sense of the power of the medium -- especially when it's combined with social networking! I couldn't get through my first attempt to sit through this, but got to the point that he introduces Kony to his son. There is definitely some extreme bias here (isn't that the case with all documentaries, if not all cinema or media for that matter?) Your point is a good one and it just further underscores my deep belief that there needs to be some form of widespread campaign to teach people how to "read" and "interpret media -- that is, see it and read between the lines (as you have). Otherwise, we (audiences) are mere chattel to the modern day propagandists armed with nothing than a handi-cam and a youtube account."

although I do think the richest people need to contribute more with higher taxes on their incomes, I also think that problem should be cut at the root of the problem.
Companies need to stop acting like greedy little fucks, and distribute wealth a lot better inside their organizations. It's insulting you have people in a business making minimum wage, and then you have a CEO making millions.
I'm not going the communist way and say that all people need to make the same money, because I don't think that. But I do think the minimum wage and maximum wage need to be brought closer all over the world.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY deserves more than 10k/month for their work. And no one deserves to have their work valued at a few cents per days.

That was an awesome shot. She must work at a carnival!

It's funny how something in a video can catch your attention even though it is minor. I purchased a 2011 F-150 early in 2011 and a new fully loaded 2011 F-150 with extended warranty and maintenance plan is only $40,000. They should give her the extra $10k along with the truck.

>> ^longde:

There are people who have cars who are homeless.

Maybe, but that dosen't mean their priorities aren't fucked. I'd file that along with people who put a $10K sound system in a $500 car.

I just completed the TM in the Tristate this past november. I've never shook so violently from near hypothermia in my entire life. Run time Temp was 47 degrees. It was by far the most awesome thing I have ever done and it was the most organized thing I've seen. 18,000 racers going off without a hitch. The obstacles range from hard to easy. The 10k volt running field was a little rough with no shirt on but the race is definitely worth it.

It's also for a great cause. For anyone wanting or thinking about doing it, I recommend it 100%. The obstacles can look scary, but there was not one point in the entire race where if you needed help, anyone from a teammate to a random stranger would gladly help you under or over it. The camaraderie is amazing. Like it was said above, it isn't for the feint of heart. It is still at it's core a 12 mile run, so definitely get some cardio in before hand but you have alot of time to do it.

I can't praise this race enough. Do it! Do it now!

The point is not that there wasn't policy. The point is policy is harder to push when needed without a Department of Education.

The entire question of whether we should have a Dept. of Edu should not have a thing to do with specific policy debates. If the Dept. of Edu. is pushing bad policy, then change the policy it's pushing; abolishing it completely is ridiculous. It would be like abolishing DoD after the Vietnam War.

The Dept of Edu serves many functions beyond just pushing policy. It provides an apparatus for data collecting, analysis, correlating, etc. dedicated to education. It provides a national mechanism to help enact educational policies that are national in nature. It's common sense that if education is important, and if there are national tendencies, trends, data worth investigating that could/should drive national education policy, then we should have a Dept. of Edu. What policies should be pushed, as I said before, is an entirely different issue.

>> ^BansheeX:

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.
My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.

My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

@CaptainObvious
Just like rich people won't eat beans and cornbread,
News managers (the persons who run a story, or stick a story in a drawer)
have a bias towards news they think is important to their target audience.

If this "news manager" is trying to get Bill Gates to watch the news, he's going to run a segment on the new Microsoft Zune, going to run
* Cancer survivor gets a new puppy
* Apple sauce day is tommorrow in sticklick county
* Can Ipods cause traffic accidents?

So, the protest doesn't fit on the menu.

another reason is that the definition of impartiality is difficult to understand. If 10K lefties protest, does that mean I give Michelle bachman equal time with the protest?

I could see where this might be true. Both players play very cautiously like a dentist prodding teeth for cavities. But, that may be because of the amount of money on the line. Definitely not the best game I have seen but still immensely entertaining. I actually watched this twice all the way through.




>> ^mentality:

The game was a huge let down, very sloppy play by Nestea. He seemed content to just sit back with maxed supply, barely putting any pressure on MVP. Nestea just sat there, mining out the right half of the map even though he had +10K minerals - all that wasted drone supply could've gone towards a larger army. When he finally decides to move out with his 100+ baneling army, after much indecision, does he drop MVP's mining expansions? - No. Does he drop MVP's production facilities? - No. Does he try to take out MVP's army? No - he does a terribly executed drop in MVP's mined out main, accomplishing NOTHING. And in the end, Nestea decides to make a max army of unsupported broodlords even though he KNOWS that MVP has ghosts and vikings.
This had all the features of a showmatch between two good friends and teammates, which has many people in the community suggesting that the game was fixed. Pretty much the worst game of Blizzcon, and one of the worst tournament finales I've ever seen.

The game was a huge let down, very sloppy play by Nestea. He seemed content to just sit back with maxed supply, barely putting any pressure on MVP. Nestea just sat there, mining out the right half of the map even though he had +10K minerals - all that wasted drone supply could've gone towards a larger army. When he finally decides to move out with his 100+ baneling army, after much indecision, does he drop MVP's mining expansions? - No. Does he drop MVP's production facilities? - No. Does he try to take out MVP's army? No - he does a terribly executed drop in MVP's mined out main, accomplishing NOTHING. And in the end, Nestea decides to make a max army of unsupported broodlords even though he KNOWS that MVP has ghosts and vikings.

This had all the features of a showmatch between two good friends and teammates, which has many people in the community suggesting that the game was fixed. Pretty much the worst game of Blizzcon, and one of the worst tournament finales I've ever seen.

>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.