Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 9 of 41 pages
We have no idea what started the fire.
And do you feel the same way about the Iraq invasion?
He's asking what the US Government should have done, not David Koresh.
8. Who started the fire that erupted a little more than six hours after the FBI began inserting the tear gas on April 19?
Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberately set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)
How does one surrender with nuclear annihilation incoming?
Russia: Approximately 1,512 strategic warheads deployed on 498 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers . The Federation of American Scientists estimates Russia has another 1,000 nondeployed strategic warheads and approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads. Additional thousands are awaiting dismantlement.
. . .
United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 , including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers . The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.
This is not unique to the US. If France, the UK, China, Israel, India, or Pakistan was under imminent threat of substantive national extinction, they'd have the right to respond with their full nuclear arsenal.
It's all bullshit posturing until there's an actual nuclear conflict. Of course, we dance the dance and pretend that mutually assured destruction is a threat with teeth.
If you are mortally wounded, and the only way you can retaliate against the guy who shot you is to take down 10,000 innocent bystanders along with him, do you do it? I say no. Snapper and others seem to say yes.
Unless, of course, those 10,000 innocent bystanders standing on American soil can't produce a valid driver's license or other photo ID. Then #### 'em and fire away.
Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin :)
So who were the moral actors in WWI?
837. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4744519)
Going back a page, it's really clear *exactly* what some of you think about the Warsaw Ghetto, which had absolutely no chance at winning and was done for. They were murderers, killing innocent Germans... I think there are a few people still surviving from the Sobibor uprising, there's still time to prosecute those dangerous war criminals.
OK then. I know when I've had enough.
More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good. Among them are experts at the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund and prominent academics like legal scholar Tim Jost. The employer mandate, Jost wrote in a Health Affairs post in June, “cries out for repair.” Repealing it “might not be such a bad idea,” if it’s replaced with something better for workers and businesses.
. . .
Chris Jennings, a longtime health policy hand who helped the White House during the final implementation push, says the employer mandate has become a “political irritant” — although he didn’t take a stance on whether it should stay, go or be replaced with some other Democrat-blessed way of helping cover workers.
From the article, there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion among Democrats. That may be acerbated if they lose the Senate because of public opposition to ObamaCare, and there is no guarantee that repeal comes on Democratic terms.
Insurance firms participating in New York’s ObamaCare health exchange are seeking double-digit hikes for patient medical premiums in 2015, new figures reviewed by The Post reveal.
The average hike sought by insurers for individual plans is 12 percent—but a number of firms serving large numbers of patients want to boost individual premiums by nearly 20 percent.
Leading the charge is Excellus Health Plan, which is seeking to sock more than 24,000 customers with a 19.7 percent hike.
The even larger MVP Health Plan, with nearly 33,000 customers, is seeking a 19 percent boost.
While a number of smaller plans put in for lesser increases or, in a number of cases, decreases, Health Republic Insurance of New York — the largest on the exchange with more than 68,000 members — requested a 15.2 percent increase for individual plans.
The proposed rate increases call into question one of the goals of the Affordable Care Act — curbing runaway health-care costs.
They noted that the agency has final say over what the rate hikes will actually be in 2015, the second year of the exchange.
Sadly we don't live in the pre-ACA Utopia where in NY Aetna requested increases up to 53.6 percent Oxford up to 34 percent in a single year
So, ditch the Employer Mandate or not? Or will the Varmint Caucus just go with whatever Obama says?
Should Democrats ditch the Employer Mandate now in an attempt to stave off mid-term loses?
After the mid-term to try to take the edge off ObamaCare as a 20016 issue?
Or is the Employer Mandate a hill to die on, since we've been repeatedly advised by the savants here that ObamaCare is here to stay?
Can't we all just talk about the Kaiser?
I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.
It's pretty complicated. And horrifyingly, over the last four days, I have misplaced the damn thing. I may have to buy another, unfortunately.
If you could avoid the Russian Revolution/Civil War/Stalin/Hitler/WW2 it would be really hard not to be way ahead.
WWI, the Roaring 20s, Great Depression, and then WWII were a crazy important stretch of time, each leaving a strong imprint on the psyche of the US and the world. I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.
Maybe the Astros sign Derek Jeter and Phil Nevin gives out gift baskets?
It's kind of amazing that this thread manages to be awful in a totally new and different way every time I open it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 3.3503 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed