Azalin

I'll take that bet....why would they deviate from the tried & true 'blame Bush'? it's easier to make a connection between greedy corporate republicans & economic malaise than to tie it to an industrial-scale abuse of Gaia. this is not a particularly imaginitive bunch we're dealing with here.

I'm not saying that paying a company to come set up shop in your state won't help bring jobs and help economically within the community, I'm simply saying that handing a cash bonus to a company to do so is not something I believe in doing. I believe that providing an attractive setting for a business to operate within is enough. speaking specifically to Texas, we already have an attractive climate for business, so in my opinion, further incentive is unneccessary. if Texas wants to place further incentive, it should lower the corporate tax burden further, not send gifts in the form of overpayments from it's citizens.

some companies do, and some don't. the ones that do use company (their own) funds to do so. governments don't have money of their own. they have to take it from people. if they have money left over after all budgetary obligations are met, then as far as I'm concerned, the surplus should go back to the citizens directly. if you wish to have a more business relocate to your area, it makes more sense to me to make the business climate more attractive for everyone, instead of bribing one or two companies to do so. Texas is not in a position where it needs to resort to things like this to attract business. last time I checked, we were way above the national average in terms of jobs & economy.

indeed, but again, the tax structure here is already quite friendly to business. Toyota opened a plant in San Antonio just a few years ago where they crank out Tundras & Tacomas hand over fist, and they didn't need any extra cash slapped into their palms to incent them to do so. now all those new salaries are being earned by Texans, who in turn pump their wages into the local economy and increase the tax base. no money from the enterprise fund was necessary for that to happen. the enterprise fund is an extra incentive which is funded by the overpayment of taxes to the Texas government, which should, in most conservative or liberatarian eyes, be refunded to the taxpayers instead of being used to bribe a company into operating here, where taxes and wages are already low enough to make the state an attractive place to conduct business. it's one thing to provide incentives to woo companies into locating to your area by making it easier for them to operate. it's another to just pay them to come to town.

if that's your point, then you picked a bad example with which to make it. the enterprise fund isn't about 'picking winners', it's simply a lure for businesses to either relocate to Texas or to open new plants/facilities here. the conservative or liberatarian argument with it is that Texas already has a pro-business tax structure and further incentive shouldn't be necessary, especially when the taxpayer money being used never makes it's way back to the taxpayers in any direct fashion.

if you knew anything about republicans and conservatives in Texas, you'd know that the vast majority are against any form of corporate welfare, which is exactly what this is. Perry is always being critisized for his enterprise fund, as most believe that any surplus (which, by the way, is achieved without a state income tax) should be refunded to the taxpayers. but by all means, keep up the charade that you're a pragmatic, independent-minded republican, frustrated by the party's inability to see things in the same sensible manner as you.

if I'm not mistaken, I believe that California law prohibits anyone from recording anyone else without prior knowledge and consent of both parties. that would make the mistress a criminal in this case, while making the old douchebag, as ignorant and repugnant as he is, a victim with every right to sue the living crap out of her. if this is indeed the case, would any media outlets who use the recording be liable as well?

if you were being honest about it, you'd at least acknowledge that it isn't the desire to do good or help others that people here have an issue with, but the methods of attempting to do so. this crap that conservatives and liberatarians don't care about others or aren't willing to help them is bogus, and you know it.

good lord....Gore is one of a large number of Washington politicians of either party that I can never see being involved in anything having to do with intelligence. I'll never forget his response to Frank Zappa at the PMRC/hearings for putting warning labels on records for lyrical content.

this.

many posters here don't read? what kind of arrogant nonsense is that? another socialist retread (and that's exactly what espousing an 80% tax on high income earners is) spinning out another Marxist-inspired pontification is supposed to be accepted as a viable alternative point of view? most in the mainstream regard McDonald's to be a restaurant. most in the mainstream regard Madonna to be music. most in the mainstream regard Dancing With The Stars to be entertainment. and we're supposed to follow mainstream sentiment with regard to economic policy?

as a matter of fact, that's about the time I was finding it out for myself.

it sounds to me that these girls assumed that once they were finished with school that their education was over. my personal experience is that once the studying is over, the real work begins.

I guess since lefties don't consider a fetus to be a person, they figure that the only people that would defend the right for one to not be destroyed for the sake of convenience must be some kind of religious wacko.

at this point in time, even the geatest minds in the world are limited to their own imaginations with regard to multidimensional space, but some of the ideas they are coming up with are fascinating (aside from being absolute brain-melters for pathetic little novices such as myself). have you ever read much about bosonic string/ superstring theory? there are several variations, each suggesting the existence of either 10, 11, or 26 physical dimensions, implying that either our plane of existence exists outside of the other dimensions, or that human perception is only capable of interfacing with four of them. if I said I understood any of it, I'd be a liar, but that doesn't keep me from going back over it time and again to try to drill at least a little understanding into my brain. it's really, really cool. the whole concept makes it easier for me to accept the possibility of intra/intergalactic travel like we've discussed in this thread. it also helps provide the criteria necessary for me to more easily accept other phenomena such as sightings of disembodied spirits - what if some people could 'see' across a weak point in dimensional barriers? the result could explain why ethereal looking people seem to glide about or fade in or out of the viewer's field of vision. of course, it could all be so much bravo-sierra, but again, it's fun to think about.

it's like I've always said: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

nice post. there's a lot in there to think about, whether you agree with it or not. the bit I'm quoting is especially interesting, because I suspect it's probably most significant in relation to advancing modern civilization. energy - we all use it & need it, and it exists everywhere, all around us, either unharnessed or as mass, waiting to be converted. but converting mass to energy is the tricky part. one phrase that is often misused is 'renewable energy'. more correctly stated, it should be 'renewable source' of energy. I realize it sounds like I'm being picky, but I believe the distiction to be important. for example, many people believe solar power to be renewable, but it isn't. just like with petroleum, there's a limited supply (although there's a hell of a lot more of it)...we're learning to catch the sun's energy by collecting it as it arrives in the form of photons in photoelectric cells, where we can convert it to electrical energy. another way is to collect the infra-red energy via reflectors and magnify it while aiming it at a common point, where the heat is collected and used to power steam turbines. I'm sure we'll discover many other ways to collect and convert the sun's energy, but none of it will be renewable, it will all be variations on the process of converting the energy from one form to another. ethanol made from corn or other plants is another renewable source, since we can continually grow more crops with which to produce the ethanol, but it's not a very efficient method of producing fuel. wind farms or water-driven generators are the closest things that I can think of offhand that would meet the true definition of 'renewable'. maybe some day we can successfully develop a method for collecting solar or cosmic radiation that can be harnessed and used to propel space vehicles....there's no reason I can think of to say that could never happen. I know this thread is based in hypotheticals, but the big bugger that screws things up is light speed. it's a barrier. any beings that dwell within the confines of the physical universe are subject to it. once something is accelerated to light speed, it no longer has any mass....it becomes pure energy. Werner Heisenberg determined that you can learn a subatomic particle's velocity or it's position, but you can't learn both. it's a fundadament of quantum physics. on Star Trek, they deal with the problem of reassembling 'beamed' crewmembers with a device built into their transporters called the 'Heisenberg Compensator', a device that can determine both the velocity and the location of all subatomic particles in order to reassemble crewmembers upon arriving at their destination. but even with that mythical device, they still can't 'beam' people at light speed. I suspect that instead of breaking the light speed barrier, if humanity ever comes up with a method for interstellar travel, it would have to be by way of 'skipping' across reality - possibly in the same manner that wormholes are believed to be multidimensional, but at least for now, that's all sci-fi as well. it's really intersting to speculate on though. if any of this sounds like arguement, don't take it as such. it's nice to have a chance to toss ideas like this around.

they certainly understand finance as far as levying & collecting taxes goes.

I've not heard any of that, but it's pretty chilling to think about. on the other hand, it would have made it a more interesting story when the Vulcans discovered the warp signature from Zephram Cochrain's first trans-warp flight.

really? worse than that? as if what I was talking about wasn't depressing enough already.

I don't know with whom he was speaking at the time, but Fermi suggested that the reason we haven't ever seen a sign of extraterrestrial life is because a technologically advanced civilization would likely blow itself into extinction before it reached the point where they would be capable of interstellar travel or communication. it's not a very inspiring thought, is it?

I admit that it's an assumption, but not necessarily such a big one considering that nearly everything we've learned of the universe in the last 60 years or so is based on the same thing from which I draw my assumption. are you familiar with the Fermi paradox?

I base what I say purely on Einstein's relativity, which although is technically still a theory, has proven to be accurate, with the exception of how it relates to subatomic particles, quantum physics specifically. that same set of physics applies to the entire universe, so time/distance/lifespan would apply to all living organisms.

I understand. when you put it that way, it's easier for me to agree with.