Crap Throwing Monkey

Somehow, I don't think you do. Emergency contraception drugs interfere with fertilization, ovulation, or the ovum's implantation in the uterine wall. That is, they prevent pregnancy (which requires ovulation, fertilization, and implantation of the ovum in the uterine wall). As opposed to chemical abortion - RU-486 and such - which abort an established pregnancy, emergency contraceptives prevent pregnancy from occurring and, as far as I can tell, do not impact an established pregnancy. Now you know. Not that it's going to make a damn bit of difference, of course...

Largely the same problems they had with the 747 (particularly the pricing and "silly features" like a gym and casino). Ultimately, they solved them...and the niche market turned out to be entirely unlike the original "country club in the sky" vision of the plane. Again...Airbus WILL find themselves building 800-seat versions in short order for the Pacific Rim. The bigger issue that will pop up will be when one of these suckers crashes. Lots of people will die, and there will be a push to outlaw planes larger than a given size on the principle that they're inherently dangerous in that it's impossible to evacuate 800 people from a plane in timely fashion.

No, 20% of the budget (and 100% of the debt payment) going to interest is a technical reason. "That would be bad" is an interpretation of the technical reason. And I assume the 30% of your income that goes into your mortgage includes some sort of principal payment? Because if you're only paying the interest and not paying down the principal, as the government does, then YES, you'd be having deep financial difficulties. Key differences being, again, that you pay down the mortgage, and that you're not running up more debt on top of it. It's not like refinancing a 12% mortgage to 6%, it's more like refinancing a 12% mortgage you've paid no principal on to a 6% mortgage you'll pay no principal on, and taking on an additional mortgage besides. The technical definition of that is: "A bad thing". And that's aside from the fact that your mortgage is backed by a tangible asset - your house. Government debt is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the government...which basically means it's backed by their ability to collect and raise taxes.

$400 billion in interest. 20% of the budget. Again, that's just the interest. If you shelled out 20% of your income on debt interest without making a dent in the principal, that would be bad. First technical reason. And the way the principal - and a good chunk of the interest besides - is usually serviced is to issue more debt. If you paid off your credit cards every month with other credit cards - which were raking up interest to the tune of 20% of your income, that would be bad too. Second technical reason.

Then introduce him to the An-124 Condor. Or if he wants REALLY big, the An-225.

"Unemployment's at its lowest in thirty years...if you ignore five of them." And that's has nothing to do with what I said. I was disputing meazza's claim that the effect of outsourcing is "exaggerated" by the simple illustration of what it theoretically would mean to unemployment rates. Of course, it's not an entirely accurate illustration...but I wanted to start simple and work from there. Regardless, it was worth it, just to read your "Unemployment's at its lowest since 1974...except it's not." statement.

Of course, 3.3 million is about 2% of the labor force...which is the difference between 5% unemployment and 7% unemployment...which is pretty damned significant itself, never mind the nature of the jobs outsourced.

Trade deficit and federal budget are not only different but largely unrelated though, aren't they? Except that the dollars that flow out of our country into China, the Chinese just turn around and reinvest in US Government debt anyway...

And a lot of Pacific Rim and Indian Ocean airlines are going to be chomping at the bit to pick them up, too. There's a hard limit to how many airplanes you can fly off a given runway; once that limit's hit, the only way to increase passenger throughput is to fly bigger planes. Ultimately, although it was designed for long-range luxury flights, that's what made the 747 successful - high-volume short range regional hops, such as between the Japanese islands, where they fly 400+ people per flight - and killed McDonnel-Douglas. And ultimately, although the A380 was designed for long-range luxury flights...I'm betting it's the high-volume, short range regional hops where they'll fly 800+ people per flight that ends up being the A380's market.

Although energy prices were bound to rise eventually...and the low energy prices Clinton benefited from had the same root cause that the high energy prices hindering Bush stem from: China. The Pacific Rim depression in the mid-90s is the biggest reason we saw $15/bbl oil at the time, just as Chinese demand is the reason we're seeing $65/bbl oil now. It basically has sh---all to do with the president. Ditto the housing market ("ditto" applying to the president, not China)...and if interest rates weren't rising, you'd be bitching about inflation instead. And what part of the country are you living in where your house is losing value? Aside from Buffalo, which has been an economic cesspool for the past fifteen years - for reasons again having sh---all to do with the president - I know of no region that's sufferring real estate deflation.

Of course, war costs are special approprations outside the budget. So subtract however much we spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you'll have a better idea of actual federal expenditures last month.

No, let's keep it where it's at so we can keep servicing the !@#$er. Anyone with a car loan and a mortgage knows that leveraging income and cash flow with debt is good too a point. Most sane people would probably suggest that eight trillion dollars was just a touch beyond that point.

And it's probably the same BS accounting-trick type of surplus Clinton's later budgets showed. But even if it's actual money...only $7,979,010,000,000 to go before the national debt's paid off!

What, are you kidding? What's your uniform, brown khaki and little Hitler mustaches with long unwashed hair and tie-dyed arm bands? On the other hand, we get gladiator armor, gladii and berets. How can you go wrong with gladiator armor, a short sword, and a beret?

"Kerry v. Bush". This election brought to you by Mike Judge...

At the very least, it'll dissuade all those whose reasons for running are strictly self-serving. Can't, sorry. It conflicts with my commitments to the Neo-Socialist Gladiator party.

He did say "a few politicians". Of course, his "few" doublessly different from your "few"...but I suggest that in true democratic fashion we simply put it to a vote...

And here I was going to point out that, in agreeing with a severely mentally retarded toker or calling someone a severely mentally retarded toker that you agree with, either way you were an idiot. But "jerk" was so much more concise.

Of course, it would also put a major crimp in the "Buy America" lobby and the unions...considering that if you're going to punish failure, you're basically going to execute the entire US auto industry. Of course, the upside of that is the entertainment value of the executions, as compared to the slow, protracted suicide the industry's inflicting on itself now. Still...I think televised executions should only be aired as a Superbowl halftime show, and be reserved for the worst NFL refs.

But, but, but...I'm severely mentally retarded from my weed smoking! How can you agree with me?

Other than being in the House and Senate...

I've got an even better idea...instead of having the government punish them, why not have the government appoint them? If the government's going to be responsible for de facto approval of corporate management in the long run anyway, it'll be a lot cheaper to ensure companies don't go under by applying government oversight in appointments rather than punitively... And in case you haven't noticed...Enron were the result of already illegal activity. In fact, the management of Enron isn't just being fined, they're on trial with a significant possibility of jail time. And Love Canal and Halliburton...when, excatly, did they go under? Hell, when was Love Canal a company? Or did your argument suddenly morph from holding management responsibile for corporate performance to a more generalized "I hate corporate America"? Actually, it sounds like you don't want them to compete at all, considering you want the government to punish them for failure...which just demonstrates how unutterably stupid your position is. "Corporations should compete...and the loser of the competition should be punished!" Socialist economics crossed with a healthy dose of Roman gladiatorial combat?

What a load of horse sh--. Aside from the practical matter of deciding what is and isn't "fair", free speech does not mean one is automatically entitled to be provided a bully pulpit.

In general, when people fly through the air, they look like rag dolls regardless of their level of consciousness. Don't ask me how I know that.

But that's a good thing...because the federal government could confiscate management's bonuses and pensions for non-performance, hence balance the budget and cut taxes...