Re: US strike options on TSP

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2012 20:32

The Indian police use Lee Enfield .303 rifles that date back to the 1940s - maybe earlier. That is over 60 years. This only means that guns survive longer than many humans. In general, if you take all human beings on earth, we are likely to find that over the last 100 years, the number of guns per person in the world has increased. This is not only because more guns are being made, but like i said, guns survive for a long time.

The US is now one of the most law abiding/enforcing nations on earth, but it is filling up with guns that will live longer than you and me. In 50 to 100 years, when the dynamics of the US has changed and the world changes, there is no guarantee that the US will occupy its current pre eminent position. That is when guns will really come out and start killing in the US. I wouldn't worry about it. I will be dead by then.

US citizens arm themselves for all sorts of patriotic reasons. No one invades a country full of guns. But guns are fascinating. Believe me. They exist to be used. And the greater the number of guns there are the greater the chance that someone will use them.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 21 Dec 2012 21:55

shiv wrote: In 50 to 100 years, when the dynamics of the US has changed and the world changes, there is no guarantee that the US will occupy its current pre eminent position. That is when guns will really come out and start killing in the US. I wouldn't worry about it. I will be dead by then.

Shiv ji, It will take much less than 50 to 100 years before SHTF. I predict within this decade we will start seeing the precursor to the second American civil war, if not the civil war itself( fought on 4GW principles ). Actually that is the whole purpose of keeping and bearing arms. To defend against tyranny both foreign and domestic.

While bloodshed may indeed result as a result of loss of US preeminence, the likelihood of reverse happening is also extremely probable.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 22 Dec 2012 07:31

Why Mass Shootings Don’t Lead to More Gun Control

And after these horrific tragedies there is usually a great national outcry about gun control. And then, after the hubbub dies down, either the failure to pass legislation, or the failure of the legislation passed to achieve a meaningful result, disappoints gun control advocates.

The strong judicial trend toward robust support for gun ownership as a civil right is one big reason for that disappointment. A generation ago there was a lot of debate over whether the constitution refers to an individual right to bear guns or to some kind of vaguer and collective idea. It is harder to craft laws these days that will substantially restrict what most federal judges now consider to be the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

Another reason has to do with the structure of the American political system, which makes opinion polls very weak guides to political behavior on this issue. The U.S. is divided into pro- and anti-gun states, but the former often have smaller populations than the latter. Compare Alaska, Wyoming and Idaho with New York, California and Illinois. The 2.9 million voters in the first three states have just as many senators as the 70 million in the three larger ones. There are, of course, small states where anti-gun advocacy is strong (Delaware and Rhode Island, for example) and big ones where the pro-gun forces rule (Texas). But on the whole, the Senate setup, strengthened by the power of filibustering minorities to stop laws they don’t like, means that national policy on guns is likely to remain well to the right of blue state public opinion on this issue until and unless people in the pro-gun states change their minds.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Dec 2012 08:31

I heard that every time there was news that Obama was leading the race, gun sales went up because it was feared that he would bring in gun control.

The USA is a heavily armed nation. No one can invade the USA and hope to take it over, given the number of guns in private hands. But guns inside the USA in private hands can be used to settle disputes. The US state is now stronger than any individual or group with guns - so the laws are strong and are implemented.

Ironically, it is mostly people who will not use guns who will abide by the laws. A man who is going to use a gun will use it anyway, so laws are only a minor hurdle. It is the abundance of guns that will become an issue. For similar reasons it will be impossible to take over Pakistan, or for Pakistanis to take over the NWFP. There are simply too many guns.

There was news a few days ago that a Chinese man stabbed 22 kids. As long as you use a knife, you have to choose your victims carefully. It is more difficult to kill many using a knife. Guns simply make it easy and more effective. There are 200 million guns on the loose in the USA. 0.01% of that is enough to equip an army division.

I never ever want to give up any weapon I own. Even when I die, the weapons will remain. Maybe I will it to someone, but it stays with me. I don't suppose anyone will feel any different about that Guns are close up, personal, comforting, dangerous and a great deal of fun. The lack of fun is only for the chap who gets a bullet.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Dec 2012 09:42

shiv wrote: I never ever want to give up any weapon I own. Even when I die, the weapons will remain. Maybe I will it to someone, but it stays with me. I don't suppose anyone will feel any different about that Guns are close up, personal, comforting, dangerous and a great deal of fun. The lack of fun is only for the chap who gets a bullet.

True true. Once a person starts Packing heat, he feels naked when his gun is not within his reach.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2012 09:54

Anyone watch the NRA spokesman Lapierre speak today?

It looks like the NRA thinks its a parallel govt and is like a Knights Templar type bigger than state type of organization.

US needs to control these hotshots for the future.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Dec 2012 10:32

ramana wrote:Anyone watch the NRA spokesman Lapierre speak today?

It looks like the NRA thinks its a parallel govt and is like a Knights Templar type bigger than state type of organization.

US needs to control these hotshots for the future.

Ramanaji, the problem is that NRA is actually mild. Their successors will not be so benign.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Dec 2012 00:18

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-1 ... unity-deal

The inside story of the CIA-ISI immunity deal

The US State Department’s decision to extend immunity to two former ISI chiefs in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case is in accordance with a clandestine understanding reached between Admiral Mike Mullen and General Ashfaq Kayani during a day-long meeting held at a secluded resort in Oman on February 22, 2011.

meanwhile, that should help us understand the US's intentions and attitudes towards India.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Dec 2012 01:53

What does it mean to have immunity of ISI chiefs in 26/11 attacks? Is it limited to cases in USA?

If USA overreaches this limitations and extends it to dealings with its investigations that affect trails in India too in 26/11 terrorist attacks etc., will India protest it?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2012 11:04

See India is hoping that US will indict the TSP minions like ISI while they themselves want to do phappi-jhappi and sing "Singh is King!"

Half the IFS guys retire in US!

What the US is saying is that TSP govt agencies have sovereign immunity and cant be sued in the New York court.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2012 11:22

nightwatch on the Benghazi report

Special NightWatch Comment: The most important finding of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) on the Benghazi tragedy is that al Qaida is alive and well and living in Benghazi. The rest is pretty much well known, with a few exceptions.

As harsh as the words of the ARB Report seem about high level failures in the State Department, no one is held accountable. The Board found that mistakes were made. The report is essentially a white wash. Three people at State resigned today, but that is not the same as facing legal proceedings for civil or criminal negligence in wrongful death. The Board gave everyone a pass.

A few things that are confusing in the Benghazi report.

1.The Board found that the ambassador was responsible for mission security and he should have pushed harder for improvements. The implication is the ambassador ultimately was responsible his own death. Hmm….The ambassador made at least three pleas for improved security, including the last on the day of his demise. Other parts of the report make clear that no amount of pushing to improve security would have made a difference with senior State Department leadership.

2.The Board found that mistakes were made. The use of passive voice means the Board refused to find anyone, except the dead ambassador, to blame for the mistakes. The message is that things went wrong; people were murdered, but it was no one's fault. This is the core of the whitewash. This viewpoint evades questions of causality, incompetence, negligence and blame.

3. Intelligence did not identify a specific threat at the time, the Board found. This finding betrays a shallow understanding of intelligence warning among the Board members. The 65-year history of US national security affairs since passage of the National Security Act of 1947 shows that waiting for last minute unambiguous warning before taking precautions is waiting to die. The report lists 20 security incidents and attacks against the consulate, but found that body of information insufficient for warning, even on the anniversary of 9/11. One clear issue not mentioned in the report, and an obvious blind spot of its authors, is insight about how intelligence warning empowers decision makers to keep them safe by averting harm or increasing readiness to receive damage. Neither happened in Benghazi.

4.The Board made no finding about the importance of Allied cooperation in maintaining diplomatic security in Benghazi, according to the unclassified report. This is strange because the British, Turks and especially the Italians -- all NATO allies and intelligence partners -- had significantly more resources in Benghazi than the US, they said. They could have been consulted or requested to help rescue the US mission on short notice. British, Turkish and Italian foreign affairs officials said in public they were not consulted and their aid was not requested. They also said they would have responded if asked.

5.The Board found that the US military did all it could in the time available. Secretary Panetta made the point that there was nothing the US armed forces could do which would have made a difference during the time of the attack. The implication of this finding is that there is little point in positioning counter terror and emergency response teams in Italy and elsewhere in the Mediterranean basin within two hours of Libya because they apparently can make no difference in a series of terrorist attacks that lasted for seven hours. This finding looks like a disservice to the US armed forces personnel and units who train for these missions. Plus, the finding of virtual impotence is an intelligence windfall for terrorists in northern Africa.

6.The Board found that the chains of command and responsibility for the protection of the Benghazi mission were not clear and that agencies were stove-piped. This is curious because the central themes of the post 9/11 intelligence and national security reforms are integration, collegiality and collaboration. Apparently those messages, so vital to combat forces, have not reached those responsible for diplomatic security, eleven years after 9/11, and even for diplomatic missions in high risk areas.

The Board found all the things that State did wrong, but the Benghazi attacks expose basic problems in national security crisis management that run far beyond those at State. The entire national security establishment performed no better in failing to save the life of Ambassador Stevens in Libya than it did in failing to save the life of Ambassador Dubbs in 1988 in Afghanistan.

Many things changed between 1988 and 2012, but the system performed no better when it counted most. That should have been the key finding of this report.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Dec 2012 05:38

I was watching the trailer for an upcoming film Oz. I recalled this video of Jung:

Carl wrote:C. G. Jung about the insanity of living without myth

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 25 Dec 2012 07:32

Would love some psycho analysis on this topic from Resident experts like CRS, Ramana etc

Piers Morgan, Immigrant With Job No American Wants, Faces Deportation

This may be Piers Morgan's last Christmas season in America: Many people want the hardworking immigrant to be deported for speaking out about guns.

Morgan, from an island called Britain, is one of millions of foreign-born workers doing a job few Americans would willingly do. Like many farmhands, unskilled laborers and television personalities, he rises early each morning to face a sometimes humiliating job.

Morgan hosts a talk show on CNN.

He has struggled in the ratings since taking over for "Larry King Live" nearly two years ago. He speaks English well, but still sometimes finds it hard to connect with people here. And though he was a celebrated journalist on his island, here he is forced to interview some of the least interesting Americans, like the Kardashians. Once he had no guest at all, and had to interview a chair.

Also read: Piers Morgan Interviews a Chair

But Morgan rarely complains. He earns enough to scrape by, and is grateful for his humble way new way of life.

But it may be in danger.

Last week, Morgan criticized the gun policies in his unfamiliar land. Losing his temper, he even called one gun-rights advocate an "unbelievably stupid man."

Suddenly, Americans took note of Morgan's 9 p.m. show. The Drudge Report pointed out in a headline that the foreign-born Morgan had criticized the country where he is allowed to live and work. The outcry was swift.

The White House offers a petition process that allows Americans to directly reach out to the president on some of the most important issues of the day. Some petitions, like those seeking to help children with cancer or more jobless benefits for people in need, might receive only a few hundred signatures.

But thousands of Americans sprung to action when they learned of the European views Morgan had expressed in America.

Their desire to protect their borders from dissent was so strong that they started a petition to deport Morgan back to his homeland. It has received some 32,000 signatures -- more than the 25,000 needed to draw an official response from the government.

Now Morgan faces a test: Should he go back to toiling in quiet obscurity? Or dare to stand up for his beliefs?

Morgan is speaking out.

"I am now trending in the United States because of this deportation threat. This is getting ridiculous," he said using Twitter, which he uses to communicate with his small audience and loved ones back home.

Some will say Morgan is in no real danger, because the people who want him gone are wackos. But he lives in fear. He has even reached out to other foreigners, hoping they might let him flee to their country if Americans decide he is too dangerous to remain here.

"If America deports me, I'm thinking of anchoring my CNN show from Jamaica," he tweeted recently to the Jamaica athletes Usain Bolt and Henry Gayle. "Got a spare room?"

Thousands Sign Petition to Deport Piers Morgan

More than 50,000 people have signed a petition calling for British pundit Piers Morgan's deportation because of his gun control views.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting earlier this month, Morgan has taken a stance on tighter gun control in the United States. Last week, Morgan called Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners for America, "an unbelievably stupid man" who is shaming his country during an interview with Pratt on his CNN show. As a result, Morgan has faced backlash from gun advocates who want him out of the country.

Best of 2012: Things you forgot happened this year

The petition, created anonymously on Friday on the White House e-petition website, calls for Morgan's immediate deportation, claiming that the host has been engaging in a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution." The petition has more than 50,000 signatures as of Monday afternoon — well above the 25,000-signature threshold required to get a response from the White House. However, the White House is under no obligation to respond.

Morgan, though, doesn't seem too worried about the potential deportation and has been calling the petition "ridiculous" on Twitter. "If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?" he wrote.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Dec 2012 09:01

How Mitt Romney Lost the Election

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Dec 2012 09:26

The Caging of America: Why do we lock up so many people?

Super-rich Irony: Why do billionaires feel victimized by Obama?

The Apostate: Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 26 Dec 2012 13:20

Err
But the Americans love British accent no?
So many advertisers on Tv and radio fake British accent to sell wares!
I have a chap who works with me and is from Johannesburg SA , of course white who openly talks low of his American cousins but the Americans don't seem to mind at all ...
He would easily put some jones here to shame with his supremacy...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Dec 2012 07:43

For Poor, Leap to College Often Ends in a Hard Fall

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 28 Dec 2012 08:34

Lionized for Lightning Victory in ’91 Gulf War

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Dec 2012 07:58

The Sharp, Sudden Decline of America's Middle Class

Atonement: A troubled Iraq veteran seeks out the family he harmed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2012 02:01

Abhishek, the Sudden Decline of the middle class is easy to explain. Their middle classness is highly dependent on well paying jobs and owning their on homes. The 2008 crisis hit both areas and hence the sharp decline.

__________-

Reading about the US Civil War, I just cant understand how the South thought they could win and launched the war.

Its all wrapped up in States rights and other high sounnding thinkgs but at the core is based on racism. And some muddled thinking that they will prevail.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2012 02:11

That is a dated article
There is an in article Rolling Stones where before the election Obama is interviewed. Check this out.
He reveals that During Reagan Era the Businesses took over and dominated the govt and media
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... w-20121025

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2012 02:16

From comment section
Unemployment in US by year during Great Depression and WW II, with related events:

1932- 23.6%. FDR elected in landslide in response to massive unemployment after 12 years of GOP rule.

1933- 25% (or possibly 24.75%, depending on source).
March 1933- FDR takes office. "First New Deal" begins. Lasts until mid-1937.

1934- 21.60%

1935- 19.97%

1936- 16.80%

1937- 14.18%

In mid-1937, FDR is swayed by a group arguing that the government needed to adopt austerity and cut spending for budgetary reasons. In a related story:

1938- 18.91%

FDR stops listening to the slashers, restores New Deal policies, and:

1939- 17.05%

1940- 14.45%

1941- 9.66%

Obviously, at the end of 1941, the US entered WW II. Unemployment fell to below 3% as there was plenty of work to be done. But let's not stop there---war is, economically, considered inefficient. But at its core, its simply a massive government spending project.

During the four years of the first New Deal, the unemployment rate in the IS was reduced by approximately 11%. After the "austerity adjustment", unemployment again fell by 9%. And obviously, it continued to fall during WW II

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 30 Dec 2012 20:58

ramana wrote:Abhishek, the Sudden Decline of the middle class is easy to explain. Their middle classness is highly dependent on well paying jobs and owning their on homes. The 2008 crisis hit both areas and hence the sharp decline.

__________-

Reading about the US Civil War, I just cant understand how the South thought they could win and launched the war.

Its all wrapped up in States rights and other high sounnding thinkgs but at the core is based on racism. And some muddled thinking that they will prevail.

Ramana, what about the British 'encouraging' the South to secede? And the impact of high cotton prices on the British position?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Jan 2013 08:07

What to Read in 2013

An admiral’s surprising reading list

FP's Favorite Reads of 2012

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Jan 2013 08:22

abhishek_sharma
Please post e few lines for each link in your posts
THis will help readers

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Jan 2013 16:08

The 20 most puzzling, hypocritical, and revealing things said about U.S. foreign policy in 2012.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 01 Jan 2013 22:25

ramana wrote:Reading about the US Civil War, I just cant understand how the South thought they could win and launched the war.

The civil war was very close, and may well have resulted in an India-Pakistan type result, but for this coincidence.

The lost document that changed the course of American history

Also explains another one of those frequently quoted terms -

Today, some who promote the notion of American 'exceptionalism' point to times when something unexplainable drops into the nation's affairs, redirecting events away from the brink.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2013 02:05

Be that as may, am reading about the two decades before the Civil War. The Missouri compromise stated no new slave states in the territories. Texas was admitted as a slave state while Claifornia was a free state. In essence the limts were drawn up and no one expected any changes. The Northerners were not really interested in spread for many reasons but prime one was that slave states would mean less chances of work for others and new immigrants. Louisiana wanted to import Hindoos as 'apprentices' just as the Brits did in West Indies after slavery was outlawed in Britian! THis move got defeated.

Everyone had kicked the can downstream and thought the question of slavery was settled. However the norms for new state formation from the territories were not drawn up. But wasn't a big deal for the empty talkers of that decade. The North produced goods which were consumed locally. The South exported the raw materials which brought in foreign exchange to help industrialize the North.

All that changed with the issue of Kansas statehood. Should it be free state or a slave state? The question was important for the railroad had to pass through it.
Then cotton price went up due to Indian war of independence in 1857-1858.
Even then if the South hadnt fired on Fort Summter in South Carolina I dont think there would have the war.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jan 2013 22:38

Generaton change in US population.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_59.htm

Your older colleagues think "the new kid" is overconfident, pushy, and too anxious to leave right at 5:00 p.m. The newcomer finds it hard to get support from her older colleagues. She's concerned that they can't (or won't) multitask, they're less confident with technology, and they're unwilling to share their hard-earned knowledge. As a result, cooperation is suffering.
How can you bridge this generation gap? And why is this important?
There's little doubt that the U.S. workforce is at a unique point in history (we'll look at other countries shortly). As "Baby Boomers" (people born between 1946 and 1964) begin to retire, the new generation steps into their shoes.
Generation X, or Gen X (born between 1965 and 1976), and Generation Y, or Gen Y (also called "Millennials," born between 1977 and 1998), have values and work styles that are completely different from the baby boomers. Finding ways to bridge the gaps within this new multigenerational workforce takes great skill – and it all starts with understanding how the new generation of leaders thinks, and what's important to them.
In the U.S., the drop in birth rate in the post baby boom years means that, by 2010, the number of people in the 35-44 middle management age group will drop by nearly 20 percent. Many other major economies worldwide are facing similar demographic changes. One practical consequence of these statistics is that organizations will have to work much harder to attract and retain good people.
New Generation leaders are a scarce commodity, and should be nurtured as such.
Generations X and Y: What They Care About
The new generations of leaders often have a completely different way of working from their older counterparts. (Keep in mind that we can't discuss all of the characteristics of these new groups in such a short space. Also, not everyone in these generations fits these characteristics: we're going to make some huge generalizations here, however hopefully these generalizations will be useful!)
For example, while boomers usually view long hours as evidence of loyalty and hard work, Gen X and Y tend to try to have more work/life balance. They've seen their parents' lack of quality of life, and the lack of loyalty companies showed to these hard-working parents in the 1990s, and they're not impressed.
They want flexible hours, more vacation time, continuous training, and telecommuting options. They expect to leverage technology to work efficiently instead of staying late in the office to get it all done.
Boomers have traditionally felt that you have to "pay your dues" to your company – and if you hate your job, that's just part of life. Generations X and Y typically don't accept this; they want rewarding, intellectually stimulating work – and they don't want someone watching them too closely to check on their progress. These new groups are independent, creative, and forward thinking. They celebrate cultural diversity, technology, and feedback, and they prefer more of a "lattice" or individualized approach to management (as opposed to the traditional "corporate ladder").
The new generations also tend to like teamwork. Studies have shown that colleague relationships rank very high on Gen X and Y's list of priorities. Things like salary and prestige can often rank lower than boomers might expect, or might want for themselves.

Note:
Some people argue that differences between generations aren't as strong as are suggested here, and that people's life stage is often more significant (see our article on the Life/Career Rainbow for more on this.)
Our opinion is that people are complex, and are affected by a range of different factors; that life stage is, of course, important in the way that people think and behave; but that there are useful differences in attitude between different generations, and these can lead to sometimes-profound misunderstandings between people of different generations.
Click here to find out more about the ideas behind generational profiles.

Attracting and Retaining the New Generations
Many have talked about how Gen X and Y seem always ready to leave one company and move onto something better, as soon as there's an opportunity. While it's true that they usually won't stay with a job if they're unhappy – as boomers often did – this doesn't mean they aren't serious or loyal.
It simply means that if you want to keep the best and brightest leaders in your organization, you need to offer them an environment that's geared to their values.
Quite a few Fortune 500 companies are changing their entire organizations to meet the wants and values of these new generations. Here are some examples:
A major U.S. chemical company has eliminated its "corporate ladder" approach to management. There are no bosses, and there's no top and bottom in the chain of command. Instead, authority is passed around through team leaders, so everyone in the company has a sense of equality and involvement.
A large U.S. accounting firm gives four weeks of vacation to every new hire (most U.S. companies offer only two weeks). This firm also offers new parents classes on how to reduce their working hours to spend more time with their families.
A software company in Silicon Valley has no set office hours. Staff come in and work when they choose. Everyone gets paid time off every month to do volunteer work, and they get a six-week sabbatical every four years.
If you think these dramatic policies would never work and would be too costly, then remember – these are all very profitable, highly productive companies with low turnover. They've made new rules, and they're successful.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Jan 2013 08:02

Ex-Officer Is First From C.I.A. to Face Prison for a Leak

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Jan 2013 09:17

A Washington power-read on John Brennan.

Ten Hagel Quotes You Need to Know

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Jan 2013 17:18

Little Girl Lost

In a matter of months she became one of the world’s most famous p*** stars. Three years later, she was dead. The rise and fall of Savannah.

Annals of Crime: The Science of Sex Abuse: Is it right to imprison people for heinous crimes they have not yet committed?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jan 2013 00:15

Like to share this one.....got it from a friend.

US Budget Debt Ceiling - Brilliantly explained..

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $ 2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $ 21,700
* Money the family spent: $ 38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $ 16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $ 142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $ 385

Got It ?????

OK now, This puts things into a much better perspective.

Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood.... and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or remove the shit?

__._,_.___

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Jan 2013 08:01

....
Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood.... and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or remove the shit?

haha...

Fixing the debt ceiling with a trillion dollar platinum coin
http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2 ... tinum-coin

When Money Dies
http://thirdparadigm.org/doc/45060880-W ... y-Dies.pdf

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 10 Jan 2013 01:54

Social psychology of morality, polarization, and political partisanship. This TED talk is relevant on many threads.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... round.html

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Jan 2013 10:45

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen- ... 35014.html

The Advantages Of Retiring Overseas Part-Time

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Jan 2013 10:52

America's Bully

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-klu ... 35235.html

Since its 1977 founding by a Methodist pastor in Mississippi, the AFA (whose mission is to rid the nation of "ungodliness and depravity") has sprayed its venomous indignation like buckshot, boycotting any group that bears the faintest whiff of gay inclusion. Among its countless targets: the Walt Disney Co., for promoting "the homosexual agenda" by providing health coverage for employees in same-sex relationships; the American Girl doll company, for supporting the non-profit youth organization Girls Inc., which it called "a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group"; Hallmark, for offering same-sex wedding cards on its racks; the Ford Motor Co., for advertising in gay publications and sponsoring gay pride celebrations; Archie comic books, for allowing its first openly gay character to marry another man in one of its stories; McDonald's, for joining the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; and the Campbell Soup Co., for buying an ad in a gay magazine that featured a presumably lesbian couple and their son enjoying a bowl of butternut squash bisque.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 10 Jan 2013 13:06

Alex Jones Piers Morgan. 1776 Will Commence Again' If Guns Taken Away .

BTW, Alex Jones is the person who filed Whitehouse petition to deport Piers Morgan for targetting second amendment.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Jan 2013 23:32

Check how he quotes India report.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Jan 2013 00:08

edited