Santorum 28,242 24.7%
Romney 28,108 24.6%
Ron-paul 24,321 21.2%

93%

BTW, didn't pass unanimously according to Wiki, "The bill passed with 93 'yea' votes to 7 'nay'. Wiki also says the text was revised and faces another join house vote tomorrow. Pretty scary this one, even if 7 of them said nay, that is still 93% of our Senate that is basically crazy...thems not good odds.


Confirmed: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218


One last update: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/13/ndaa-update

They aren't hopeful of a veto. C4L can be a little reactionary and overly critical, but in this case, better safe than sorry. Start contacting Senators pronto, you would be amazed how much it helps.

Well, traveling at 100,000 mph, it would take a mere 93 million years to reach it. The solar probe on close approach to the sun can reach about 200km/s, so only about 864,000 years that way. I doubt we'll be able to travel faster than that in interstellar space in the next few hundred years.

Yea, we're not going to these planets any time soon. Let's hope for our inter-dimensional friends to hook us up with some loopholes to travel faster, eh?

*length=93

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

Stupid people do stupid things, whether they are theists or atheists. Faith has nothing to do with it, and your idea that believing in a higher power is a suspension of critical thinking shows that you are intellectually satisfied with a stereotypical and superficial analysis, which itself shows a lack of critical thinking.

With over 90 percent of the world having some kind of faith in a higher power, and 93 percent of this country, you must think you're pretty darn special, considering that you must believe that the vast majority of people on this planet, and those who came before them, are inferior to you. Yet, you have more faith than anyone else. Here is a smart person to tell you about it:

atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.

You apparently don't know the difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. They are separate issues.



Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist.

What about poisonous mushrooms? Should He allow those? Someone might eat one. Should He have allowed us to invent electricity, since people have been electrocuted? How about hang nails? Long lines at the grocery store?

Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good?

Man screwed up the world. Sickness, disease and death are the consequences of sin entering into the world through man. None of it was necessary, but God is still capable of using it to achieve a greater good.

You just have a very imbalanced view here. You blame God for the bad but fail to notice the good. If there is anyone to blame for scourge of Malaria today, it is the apathy of human beings:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/malaria-prevention.htm

That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.

Hitler didn't send his son to die on a cross for your sins. God has His hand extended to you to pull you out of the fire at any time, but it's on you to reach out for it.

>> ^jwray:

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.
Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist. Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good? That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.
It is pretty fucked up to believe in / worship this bloodthirsty megalomaniac without any evidence that he even exists.
Yes, church gives you a sense of community. That's fine. I still even go to a church event once in a blue moon to catch up with some old friends from 10 years of attending the same small Sunday school classes. But for fuck's sake, there are other ways to meet people and serve your community than through glorifying a fictional genocidal tyrant who wouldn't even deserve it if the bible were true.

Some of those technocrats in Greece seem to be fascists as well.

Fantastic. Reminds me of my wife's granddad, so is very moving for me. I'm going to tell you about him because I can, you don't have to read this, it's just that I think he deserves a mention.

He retired at 65 from a career as an engineer and went on to be a tinkerer and inventor. He had a love of steam engines and built a scale model of Stephenson's Rocket in very much the same way as the gentleman in this video, but he made absolutely everything from scratch, including the nuts bolts and washers. It's about 12inches long and runs around a track when connected to compressed air. It still fascinates me to this day. He finished making it when he was 93. He said he'd sometimes drop a piece on his study floor and it would take him most of the day to find it again with his bad eyesight and loss of feeling in his fingers. I can't imagine having the skill to make one now while I'm in my prime. Seeing things like this make me feel awfully humble.

His crowning achievement was making the world's first ever road-legal solar powered car. He liked tinkering with solar power and realised that if he made a solar powered car it would be fun and he wouldn't have to pay road tax (he built and drove an electric sports car to work and back in the 50s for the same reason). So he built it. He wasn't the first to use solar power, he was just the first to make it road legal. I don't think he knew at the time he was the first, and it didn't seem that important to him. It was just something interesting to do. I swear he could have lived to 200 and not run out of ideas or things to do. He makes me realise how little I've done with my life.

If anyone's still reading and is still interested, this is him:

http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/default.asp?resource=6940

*length=93

>> ^RFlagg:

"A speed which most cars can get up to." Can they? And can a Focus? I've gotten to 90 something in one of my cars but it was shaking too bad to keep going, most cars I've had become unstable around 80 something. I mean the speedometer goes to 120, but I question if they can go that fast.


im guessing they're of the older and clunkier variety? my old 93 accord ex got to 110 and it was in a pretty wretched state.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

>> ^Peroxide:

http://www.newscientist.com/articl
e/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


According to this study...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. These are those top 50 Companies

Table S1: Top 50 control-holders. Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the
threshold model, TM). Column indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in
the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE code starting with 65,66,67
belong to the financial sector.

Rank Economic actor name Country NACE code Network Cumul. network
position control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05%
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66%
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94%
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21%
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02%
6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55%
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02%
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25%
9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46%
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45%
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33%
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17%
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99%
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81%
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56%
16 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28%
17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98%
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64%
19 T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29%
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92%
21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56%
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16%
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72%
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26%
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79%
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUP PLC GB 6512 SCC 30.30%
27 INVESCO PLC GB 6523 SCC 30.82%
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415 SCC 31.32%
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24%
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69%
31 AVIVA PLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14%
32 SCHRODERS PLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57%
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00%
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43%
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82%
36 STANDARD LIFE PLC GB 6601 SCC 35.2%
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57%
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92%
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28%
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63%
41 ING GROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96%
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29%
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61%
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93%
45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25%
46 BNP PARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56%
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88%
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18%
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48%
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78%

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

So, these statistics are from the IRS and isn't internet hearsay. Medicare makes the percentages paid by top earners go up. So do property taxes. (Sales tax and state taxation is another discussion and doesn't involve the Federal government. In any case there's no way to enforce a progressive sales tax. So if this is unfair, then the only thing to do is eliminate it altogether. But that is a state-by-state decision.) Medicare along with Medicaid and some other mandatory taxes account for 33% of Federal expenses/budget, while social Security for 21% (even thoug Social Security is a separate Trust Fund).

Social security is capped for various reasons and it doesn't have anything to do with current tax debates or legislative proposals. Social security tax is about 15%, half of which is paid by the employer. Social Security is in theory a separate budget from the rest of the federal budget. And for 2011, the total tax is reduced with the employee paying only 4.2% of it and the employer paying 6.2%.
Medicare, as mentioned, is not capped at any income. On a million dollar income you pay about $14,500. On a 45K income you pay about $652.

Unemployment taxes are paid fully by employers not employees.

The complaint that the bottom 80% pay 13% is misleading because the bottom 50% (half the population) pay between only 0-3%.

Top 10% (not top 20%) - pay 70%
Bottom 50% - pay 3%
Everyone else - 27%

But it gets a bit more complicated because about 47% of households pay 0% income tax, a majority in the bottom 40% of earners.

Top 10% earners have to pay more (70%) for the roads, government salaries, wars, national parks, Airforce One, NPR, corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and most other government services (the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of it) but when buying goods (with or without sales tax), like coffee or an iPhone or pumping gas or a movie ticket, it does cost top earners a smaller percentage of their income.

Some other "taxes" are, in effect, flat taxation like business license, car registration, bridge toll, sanitation and flood control, parking meters, etc.

Fairness in this is a matter of opinion (and self-interest). I'm not an accountant so I can't really go into all the various loopholes in our tax code.

And I'm talking mostly about taxation at the Federal level of which income tax accounts for about half. Like I said, sales tax is a state matter and so are fees like parking meters etc. Taxation at the state level seems to draw less controversy because Democratic states will "happily" pay more and Republican states will "happily" pay less and you can select a state to live in at just the right taxation for you.

And as we all know on the Sift, you have that statists on one side who think more taxation is better because the government is here to help and anti-statists on the other who think "that government is best wich governs least" (or not at all). And also the hybrids like Lyndon Johnson, Larry King, Jon Stewart, and others, including most corporatists.

>> ^Ariane:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


Umm, no.
"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thin
gs_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.
The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.

Very good analysis.

>> ^Ariane:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


Umm, no.
"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thin
gs_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.
The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.