Thats why: “Belgian firemen were protesting against national budget cuts for the fire department in Brussels on Monday. Firemen from all the country gathered in front of Prime Minister’s office with fire trucks and blocked traffic in Brussels’ ring road. They burned tyres in the streets and sprayed water and foam towards police guarding the protest. At some point police officers stood knee-deep in foam on the street. Talks are ongoing on the ministerial level on the new Belgian budget, and firemen are protesting against cuts in their insurance benefits and insufficient staffing.”

Seems a piece of metal managed to punch a 3" hole in the 1/4" armor plating with, according to Elon Musk, 25 tons of force. The on board computer systems alerted the driver, he exited the freeway as instructed by the system and exited the car. The fire never reached the passenger compartment even after the fire department punctured the protective cover to put the fire out. The battery system has internal fire walls that worked as expected. Musk notes that Tesla's fire rate is much lower than a gas powered fire rate. The company is giving the guy another car as a loaner.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-fire

I cleaned up my multiple rants. So sorry for the wall of text.

-------

It's because of guys like the one in the video that I laugh when people are they're Libertarian. I think they're overall idea is nice and dandy, but much like steadfast religious people who don't actually know their theology and how it would actually play out in reality, this guy contradicts himself by the end.

Especially his private defense agencies . . . except, ALL of those solutions are paid for by the government OR by private agencies to take away the liberties from those whom they see as their subjects. But then again, the initiation of force is immoral . . . so any defense agency is immoral, whether it's government funded or not.

And you don't need a fire department because private companies make fire sprinklers? Except, the reason fire sprinklers are everywhere now is because the government forced builders to use them after the free market allowed cities to burn down and hundreds if not thousands to die because of their lack of use. Yes, private companies solve all social issues . . .

------------------

Wait?? Did he really just say the original Robber Baron's lowered prices to be "competitive" and drive each other out of the market?? Wow . . . They lowered prices to put others out of business by raising prices where they already had a monopoly. It wasn't competitive at all. It was a monopoly so they could game the system and raise prices afterwards. There was no competition whatsoever. It was who could butter the hands of the Prices and Kings to get the most lucrative exclusive deal which eventually led to those countries rebelling by forcibly taking over those oils companies and nationalizing. Those stories are EXACTLY why the US has Anti-Trust laws . . .

And for the record, Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple because he spent too much money trying to make the US factories pretty on the inside and never wanted to move to China. It was a board of directors decision and overall, Apple hasn't been the worse offender overseas. It's not the greatest record, but hell, it's not the Wal-Mart suppliers that LOCKED their workers in a unsafe building they knew would catch on fire or crumble. Or both. But hey, free market baby!


-------------

WTF, Government FORCED business owners to segregate? Or could it simply be the RACISTS that refused to serve "coloreds" and their white politicians who had lucrative deals by being in government, so to get elected they passed laws against blacks.

And public education is responsible for racism? So these rich white people who NEVER went to public school were racists because of public education . . . . Holy shit this guy is a loon.

Just because the school is funded by the government doesn't mean the people teaching there aren't racists, or the society itself is racist. Or that there were MANY whites who were against racism and who fought alongside blacks to end racism and to give equal access, without ANY financial incentive whatsoever. Matter of fact, many people SUFFERED financially for standing up for the rights of others.

Yo, play Ingress with me. It's an augmented reality game with two factions fighting over actual points of interest in reality: Post offices, fire departments, police stations, parks, college campuses, jamba fuckin juices.

Each location is a portal that you fight over and DESTROY for your factions. I am in the Orange County Resistance. If they want to stop us from playing, then they're going to have to stamp out all of our freedoms.

Fight the power peacefully and practice war in augmented reality!

@poolcleaner me: Garden Grove, Stanton, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Costa Mesa. Civil Disobedience in the form of gaming.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? Or do you rely solely upon the fire department?

also,

socialism doesn't destroy incentive... it creates a solid base from which to operate

fire departments, police departments, public education... these are all social (ie socialist) services

the people who tout socialism as evil fall into two categories

people who are high enough in the income bracket to realize certain laws, and systems set in place, prevent them from making even more money... AT OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPENSE... so they demonize socialsm

the other are brainwashed idiots who aren't in that income bracket, but just tow the party line because (in all likelihood) they don't like a colored president... are easily swayed by low information fear tactics... are more concerned with what is on Honey Boo Boo this week than what is actually going on with their country... who come out against socialism, but most likely partake of some socialist system, or even depend on one... who don't realize that the Bible is the most SOCIALIST piece of literature out there...

ie, morons

How can they justify letting flamers in the fire department! Isn't that counter intuitive? Doesn't anybody watch Arrested Development?!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Right, cause the appropriate response to realizing your parent's home is in the process of burning to the ground is..?
I think you're confusing this girl's lack of swift-thinking and vocabulary..
for her genuine panic and shock over an uncontrollable situation.
>> ^budzos:
This is a pretty sad example of how kids/young people today are often incapable of engaging sincerely with actualy reality. This little idiot's house is burning down and she can't even have an honest reaction to it.



I've heard water does well against fire.

I know I probably spent more time playing with fire as a kid than most kids today, but surely some common sense should still exist? You can hear that she already has someone else in the house on the phone, presumably with 911 or the fire department. But that also means some time has passed since they spotted the fire. The only 2 normal reactions I can understand as coming next are, get some water to try and slow it down, or get yourself and everyone else out to safety. Grab my phone or camera and start filming from inside the house doesn't get on the list. Filming it doesn't seem a likely jump from somebody panicking either. Filming it from inside the house is simply stupid, plain and simple.

From the point of view of having an authoritative opinion in the Martin case, he is a nobody.

As a son of the south, I would argue that many a fire chief or fire captain is a full blooded redneck. In this case, his crass opinion merely confirms the fact. I say average redneck, because I have never met an exceptional one.>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^longde:
Cenk, I get it that the Martin case increases hits, but why is the facebook comment of a nobody newsworthy? The opinion of the average redneck is no mystery to anybody.

Captain in a fire department isn't a nobody and not your average redneck.

>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^longde:
Cenk, I get it that the Martin case increases hits, but why is the facebook comment of a nobody newsworthy? The opinion of the average redneck is no mystery to anybody.

Captain in a fire department isn't a nobody and not your average redneck.


He's nobody to those of us impervious to fire so HA!

>> ^longde:

Cenk, I get it that the Martin case increases hits, but why is the facebook comment of a nobody newsworthy? The opinion of the average redneck is no mystery to anybody.


Captain in a fire department isn't a nobody and not your average redneck.

"Hello, this is the fire department"
"A fire where?"
"Well then you're just going to have to burn"

i like socialized healthcare, UI, fire departments, police departments, etc

i'm glad some people here make the distinction between Capitalism and Crony Capitalism
but there's more than one type of socialism too

don't drink the koolaid

realize society is more complex than just making profit, or just helping your neighbour

the only boogeyman that really matters are unregulated banks and corporations

@Grimm - At the risk of stating the obvious, don't you think it's more logical to believe that Reagan's loyalty to big money (and ALL of his predecessors) might have played a dominant role in the degradation of American public education, rather than the fact that a Department of Education exists? Boise laid out a number of deliberate poison pills in his comment. You've merely asserted your claim without any rational other than an arbitrary number of trips around the sun.

Let's say you buy a new car, and I tell you I hate it and intend to pop the tires, break the windows and light it on fire after you go to sleep. If the next morning you wake up to find your car on fire, with popped tires and broken windows, would you take it back to the dealer and claim the car was faulty? This, in essence, is what you are doing here.

If I were you, the logical counter argument would be, "well there you go, you've made my case, a malicious or subservient (take your pick) president was able to have a hugely negative effect on education nationally. Had it been left to the states, our educational system would be a utopic wonderland."

To which I would respond, "If big money can compromise a huge government, what makes you think they couldn't eat a state house for champagne brunch?"

The problem with libertarians is that they are unwitting allies of the corporate state. They believe that getting rid of government would end authoritarianism, completely failing to understand that the kind of authoritarianism that haunts our country would prefer to be unrestrained by government too. Right libertarianism, if enacted, would indeed provide more liberty to a handful of wealthy and powerful people, but it would come at the cost of liberty to the vast majority. 1% vs 99% if you will. Sound familiar? I see no clear difference between libertarianism and social Darwinism. If you respond to any of this, I'd most like to know how you differentiate libertarianism from social Darwinism.

I think a vast amount of people would prefer the liberty of healthcare, education, roads, fire departments, police departments, schools and libraries to the liberty to dominate a labor force, the liberty to pollute the environment with impunity, the liberty to manipulate the banking system or the liberty to build bloody corporate empires on foreign shores. What makes you think the business men that took us to war in the middle east wouldn't be twice as brutal without a single shred of oversight or transparency? What makes you think deregulated labor markets wouldn't revert back to pre-regulation era slavery if given the option?

If social Darwinism is what you truly desire, then we have nothing more to say to each other. However, if you want to stop authoritarianism, then stop trying to make it easier for authoritarians to thrive. Ron Paul is a nice fella and all - an adorable little grandfatherly gnome even - and I take him at his word when he says he believes his economic hypothesis would create liberty. Unfortunately, reality begs to differ. And, sincerity is no excuse for bad ideas.

Good debate. Peace.

You can join the convo too if you like @GeeSussFreeK

>> ^silvercord:

Here is that link again. I don't know why it crashed earlier.
It absolutely supports the argument for the very reason that UPS is unionized. Corporations exist to turn a profit. Many of them can support union employees. The government, on the other hand, does not exist to make money. It simply cannot fund the same types of benefits the private sector does.

The title of the article you're linking:

USPS made $76M profit in April (before $458M retiree health charge turned it into a loss)

Part of the issue that I didn't even delve into before is that USPS isn't really a good example of a public sector organization to begin with. It's not taxpayer funded, and hasn't been for 30 years. It's a lot closer to Fannie and Freddie than it is to the fire department.

But even setting that aside there's no causal link between unionization and the USPS financial problems, even according to the article you linked. Hell, they point out that wage and benefit costs have dropped.

So why tout the USPS's problems as another strike against public sector unions, its problems have nothing to do with unions, and would be profitable if it weren't for the stupid pre-paid benefits rule?

But that's just nitpicking, really. The real problem with the argument you're making is that it assumes that unions universally make unreasonable demands, and then usually get those unreasonable demands met.

Public sector benefits aren't generous because unions have fleeced the American people, they're generous because the private sector has drastically curtailed benefits (and unions!), while the public sector has been much more gradual in reducing them. Even still, public sector jobs generally pay people less than the private sector would offer them at their education and experience, even after you factor in benefits.

And even if that were not the case, and this was a matter of unions asking for too much, it is still a negotiation. Government employers can negotiate benefit cuts and wage cuts -- and in fact in most places the unions have agreed to rather sharp cuts during the recession!

Taking away the ability for public sector workers to organize is a political maneuver, not a budget concern. The idea on offer is to use a temporary crisis to put in place a permanent change in policy, in order to further their longer-range ideological and political goals.