BaseJester

And the world's investors are too stupid to realize this?

This explanation would work if "the Jews" had referred to her as a dog instead of Jesus himself.Do Gentiles require more forgiving than Jews? Is Jesus forgiving people for not being a Jew? Or are you just saying that Jesus had some excess capacity to forgive available to Gentiles?

Food and transportation aren't obsolete. Some methods of acquiring food and transportation are obsolete.We might very well be delaying the introduction of improvements (probably electric cars rather than hover ones, but we can hope) because of the huge barrier to entry that subsidies represent to the new companies. If you're LongLiveYorke Motors, you not only have to compete with GM's manufacturing and design but also their lobbying team. Look at Ford's argument: We don't actually need subsidies to survive per se, but we need subsidies to compete with GM.

I have to give you that. Right, and GM was unwilling to do those things on its own. The bankruptcy (and threat of bankruptcy) eliminated the liabilities of the past mistakes but (with the notable exception of the CEO) kept the entity that made those decisions intact. When the times are good, GM isn't going to provide bonuses and interest-free loans back to the American taxpayers. The policy is: heads I win, tails you lose. GM should be responsible for their own cash-flow management.If GM goes 25 years without coming back for more bailouts, then we might be able to call them fixed and profita

Do you think GM is profitable now? What changed? Any reasonable definition of the expense of cars to Americans includes the taxes used to subsidize the industry. I'm pretty confident without doing any math that Americans are spending more on cars by this definition.

What do you think was Jesus' purpose in referring to her as a dog in his metaphor?

I would think people who believe certain companies are "too big to fail" should feel some urgency to break those companies into smaller ones, whose individual collapse doesn't threaten the national economy.

At 100bb, yes. Not so much in deep games, imho.

I think you might be trying a bit too hard to fit this into the libertarian narrative.

If they come to the conclusion that God exists but he's not worthy of worship, then they are not atheists. You're conflating something accepted for the sake of argument with an actual belief.E.g.:Theist: God is an omniscient, loving being who is described perfectly in the bible.Skeptics: OK, let's accept that the bible describes God perfectly for the sake of argument. The bible tells us that God killed many people for the benefit of the Hebrews or vengeance. How can we explain this behavior from an omniscient being? Theist: We don't know. It's part of God's complex plan.Atheist: I'm not

Well, somebody has to provide silly internet posts.

OK, sure.I guess you're referring to stories like this:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...and_george_bushI think all this means is that generally Tea Party Members prefer Bush to Democrats.

I don't think there even was a Tea Party in 2004. What are you talking about?

What is this? What sort of speech? That's a great idea. Let's call it the "The First Amendment".

Clearly, he's experiencing too much right-wing media exposure.

I think that's the test for freedom in general, which is what Snow is saying. I don't think it matters whether or not the "it" is religious behavior or not.E.g., should Rastafarians be able to do drugs that aren't hurting anybody else because it's part of their religion? Or just because they aren't hurting anybody else?

I agree; I don't think that the First Amendment should protect the Catholic position in this case. The First Amendment should prevent the government from suppressing the expression of ideas of Catholicism but not create special rights for Catholics.If I say that, as a practicing Sith, the First Amendment protects my right to choke people to death; someone has to stand up and say my religion is dumb and, while I'm free to believe it, I can't practice it. Well, lots of religions are dumb from the perspective of everybody else. And it very difficult to argue legally for how exactly dumb a reli

You're completely upside-down on this. I'm not suggesting forcing a decision on anybody. People don't need coverage for birth control any more than they need coverage for hamburgers. They need a product.

I question it. The pill costs about a dollar a day. It makes no sense to build a bureaucracy around spreading the risk of ovulation. The obvious solution is for the people who want contraceptives to go buy them with money and anyone who disagrees with this transaction for whatever reason can go **** themselves.

The Catholics are objecting to the government requiring them to pay for (not just allow) other people's contraception. The government is coercing the Catholics; the Catholics are not coercing their employees. If you refuse to buy me doughnuts, and I say, "SilentSnow is denying me doughnuts," do you think that is fair?Buy me doughnuts.

What would be the right way to deal with this? Disable the account for a time-period (e.g., a week) after a password reset?

If you have a point here, I'm missing it.

Julia Gillard

Yep.

Hey, he didn't include Hitler this time. Give him credit for improvement.