Heh, I respect truck drivers. I understand that trucks are slower to accelerate and that drivers drive no faster than the speed limit. Unlike other people on the road, however, truck drivers tend to have the courtesy to stay in the right lane unless they are turning left or passing.

That is more than I can say for the idiots who camp in the left lane. They are the scum of the road. I wish I could push a button and a satellite would vaporize them with a laser beam.

It sucks that Flint had to deal with that. That fool almost caused a costly accident. He could have at least apologized.

Skoe,

It would not necessarily cost several trillion dollars in war spending. The 3-4 trillion dollars in war spending has included Iraq, Afghanistan, and operations in Pakistan. That is also from 8-9 years of military commitment.

Iran is a regional competitor to Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is hostile to Iran, and both Saudi Arabia and Jordan have begged the United States to destroy them. Considering the House of Saud is estimated to have at least $500 trillion in cash assets, with upper estimates far exceeding $1 trillion, I am sure they would be willing to help the US cover the cost of crushing their competitor.

Additionally, we wouldn't necessarily have the same problems in Iran as we did in Iraq. First, Reza Pahlavi can easily be elevated to his rightful place on the Persian throne, so concerning ourselves with establishing a democracy would be unnecessary. Moreover, Iran's economy is perhaps suited to a painless transition to a constitutional monarchy. Second, Iran has a near homogenous Shia population. By contrast, the Iraqi invasion provoked violence in Baghdad's streets due to the combination of political instability and the historical domination of the Sunni minority over the Shia majority.

In summary, the factors necessary for transitioning to a new government already exist, there is reason to believe stability will be achieved faster in Iran, and the House of Saud may be willing to pay a large portion of the bill for their security.

I like Ron Paul. He's intelligent and for real. Unfortunately, his ideas are radical.

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

Also, on the note of using corn to provide ethenol, if this reduces carbon emissions, I am all for it (and before anyone even TRIES to bring up the debate of climate change, I don't necessarily mean to prevent that, but more to keep air a little cleaner...I am an asthmatic living in China, it's not comfortable to be breathing the air on some days...air pollution is bad!!!). You are also very quick to defend people's rights to make profits, but now use people making money off corn as biofuel as an example that is creating problems...pick an angle and stick with it!>

I am not denying the desirability of reducing carbon emissions to prevent climate change, but cons of ethanol outweigh the pros.

1. Corn depletes the soil many times more than other crops.

2. There are alternative research possibilities for reducing carbon emissions. Fuel economy of vehicles has radically improved. The 2012 Honda Civic now has 42 mpg, and that's not the hybrid version. And there is no reason to suspect that, with continued investment, that fuel economy could be improved far beyond what it is now.

3. In a world with growing population stress, using corn to produce ethanol take land out of food production.

Flint,

Fair enough. I am the biggest hater of ethanol subsidies... It causes so much damage to both the environment and economy... Additionally, government buyouts of crops, like you say, have departed so far from their original purpose that it's become blatant price manipulation. Moreover, the price manipulation of US crops has angered many of our trade partners. It's a liability on so many levels.

If that nonsense ended, I agree, there would be a lot less hunger.

My Economics professor confirmed what you say back in April. However, he also mentioned that shale oil is not feasible. It currently (at least in 04 of 2010) is so costly to extract compared to its profits that a businessman is wise to look elsewhere. He seemed particularly interested in the availability of natural gas though.

Although not Liberal, he's certainly moderate in his views.

lolz at HIV denial.

However, it's true we spend way more money on HIV "prevention" than is necessary. When I hook up with a woman, an HIV infection is the last thing I'm worried about. People these days have been indoctrinated to fear it way more than is statistically rational. The facts are that unprotected vaginal intercourse has less than a 1/1000 chance of infection, and only 1% of the US population is infected. Of that population, the majority are homosexual men and drug addicts. Really, you can put aside your fears of HIV infection when getting physical with your new middle class girlfriend you met in college class.

However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned with the possibility of other infections. You should definitely be concerned with HSV-2 and common bacterial STIs like Chlamydia.

> Einstein wrote:

> The comment by Zarf was right on.

Justinian I drive the whole of the Continental 48 States.

You would be surprised at the amount of potential farmland.

There is no shortage, nor will there be a shortage.>

There is a difference between having a shortage and the possibility of new development to correct that shortage. But I will say I agree with you that there are plenty of opportunities to correct the shortage we have right now. Although, I am not too excited about your idea of hacking every tree to put more land in to production. We can do some of that, sure, but the way you make it sound seems like you support the same policies that caused the Dust Bowl. Also, you fail to consider that farming mountains, while possible, is extremely expensive.

Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were obviously both cases of victor's justice.

LP,

I once advocated a union between all Western nations. But I am now ambivalent because of idealistic Human rights activists in Europe. Seriously, wtf is their problem attempting to arrest Bush?

It's one of those bills intended to provoke people.

Sometimes, a legislator will propose an outrageous bill he/she knows will gain no support as a way to draw attention to a larger issue. It's kind of like satire.