Elk were on the verge of eating themselves out of existence in Yellow Stone National Park...until wolves were reintroduced and started killing the elk, but more importantly forced those animals to change their behavior to avoid wolves.

In the Eastern US, we have few predators to attack deer populations which would do significant damage to their long term survival if people did not hunt the deer.

People are predators too...and if we want to resurrect a triceratops just so that we can hunt it for a movie, then we'll darn well do it, so that our pesky fantasies don't render themselves extinct by eating too much of our brain matter.

I agree with Emajica.

You can buy a ceasefire from both sides...you can't buy peace in this case.

Getafix, when given what he/she wants would quickly find out that it's not what he/she wants. Sometimes, the fastest way to change some people's minds is to give them exactly what they state they want.

What if someone is a chef...you have totally discriminated against chefs and other food workers!

*wink*

I am a Shift Supervisor for a major US retail pharmacy company.

Pros: It's good management experience. Helping customers find solutions to their problems can be rewarding. There's some flexibility in the schedule.

Cons: Underpaid, overworked, understaffed. The company I work for expects us to produce results, but can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that we need more labor hours to produce those results. It's a catch 22, they won't give us more hours because we can't produce results because they won't give us more hours.

Overall, I'd advise people to stay away or to take the job for the short term with a plan to get the heck out as quickly as possible. This is a company (and no, I can't tell you who it is) that is headed for big problems with employees leaving and people refusing to work for them.

We do not need more gun control laws right now. Why? One very simple reason...because we're not fully enforcing the laws that are already on the books. We need to examine places where common standards across state lines can enable each state to better enforce their gun control laws. For instance, a common database of individuals deemed psychologically disabled from gun ownership. Actually, I think having a common database setup and allowing the states to maintain their own interconnected databases, so that they can determine if an individual remains on the list or comes off, but if a gun store in one state does a background check and the person is barred from gun ownership in another, it pops up.

She has now joined Barrack Obama on my list of useless morons.

On reading more about this case, I am reminded of various quotes ascribed to US Supreme Court Justices in which they say that a prosecutor's job is to seek justice. Of course, this is Canada and not the US. However, I would have a hard time sending this person to jail for the rest of her life when culpability for these deaths does not fall completely on her shoulders. I have to question the prosecutor's decision to pursue a charge that could result in this defendant spending the rest of her life in jail.

Two points:

One - People should not get away with their own acts of colossal stupidity just because it is the general assumption that someone else would have to be at fault. This lady apparently stopped very quickly and did not turn her hazard lights on when she did so. She was in the fast lane on the highway when this occurred and in a location that did not provide much room to get around her.

Two - The general assumption that you are responsible for avoiding hazards in front of you when you're driving/riding is usually correct. 70-80 mph (for Americans) when you're in the fast lane is not usually a problem, but as stated above you have to pay attention and adjust your riding for the road conditions.

This is really a case that cannot be judged without all the evidence, so we have to rely on the jury to reach an appropriate conclusion. The case may well be that they saw equal culpability between the driver and the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist, however, died and can't be held responsible for his role in this accident. On the other hand, the jurists may also have found that the driver's stop was too quick for the motorcyclist to reasonably respond in a safe manner.

http://www.nytimes.com/...oup-g-scenarios.html?_r=0

I'd just like to tell my cable TV provider that I want MLS games...live! Thank you, World Cup, for helping me to see the beauty in watching futball on TV, instead of just the beauty of playing futball.

Basically what's being said is that when all else fails, you pick a few people to line up as a succession of dictator douchebags and leave the country together, but barely functioning. Unless a colossal change of thought process occurs in enough Iraqis willing to fight for their new thoughts of a unified Iraq under shared power, then Iraq might just have a chance. One Ayatollah in Iraq has called for more of a unity government with Sunnis having some say and Iraq being united strongly against ISIS. We'll see how this plays out. The US cannot successfully interfere in the current crisis politics being played out. Taking action against ISIS before Iraq moves towards a unity government would not serve American interests. The US might be able to help the Shiites beat ISIS through US air power, but we'd alienate the Sunnis even further and only leave Iraq headed for the same fight again.

In case my boss happens to see this...I'm currently off on Thursday and now I'm unavailable on Thursday. Sorry.

The Group of Death is living up to its name.

Wait, weren't you talking about Quebec? This sounds like Nashville, minus the ice. Oh and you can add these morons that think there is no fast lane. Someone should give every southerner in Nashville a memo: The **** yankees have moved to town and imposed a fast lane on the highways. Violate it at your own peril.

Why keep Iraq as one country? Let's think about what would happen if we broke Iraq up. Firstly, you'd have to do a three way break up at least.

The Kurds will not allow a break up to occur without them becoming independent and seizing several parts of northern Iraq that they don't already control. The Kurds would also look to take territory from Turkey and possibly even Iran. Iran would probably let this happen...so long as no one contested them taking over Southern Iraq. Turkey, however, would be very unlikely to go along with territory loss to the Kurds and would likely invade. I suppose that it's possible that the Kurds would consent to being annexed into Turkey...provided that they be granted the Kurdish territories already in Turkey as part of an autonomous region within Turkey. Essentially, Turkey would become one nation, two countries. I'm not sure that an independent Kurdistan within the nation of Turkey would be agreed to by either side.

Southern Iraq, as I indicated above, would likely be annexed by Iran. The Shiites would probably have no real problem with this, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other allies in the region would take this as a great cause for alarm. The movement of Iranian military forces into Southern Iraq could very well ignite a regional war.

Meanwhile, a strongman of some sort would emerge in Western Iraq. If he didn't try to reunify Iraq, he would certainly invade Syria and toss Assad out on his ass. Iran would not be cool with this, but many of our Middle Eastern allies probably would, thus increasing the odds for a regional war.

Then there's Baghdad, because neither the Sunni's nor the Shiites are likely to accept the other side having control of the former capital. The Kurds might play some shenanigans here in a bid to get the Sunnis to agree to their control of parts of Northern Iraq in exchange for the Kurds supporting the Sunni claim on Baghdad or just leaving altogether.

Try to break Iraq up and let the general conflagration begin.

Okay, you can argue about Iraq, arming the mujahideen, Saudi Arabia, etc., but when you suggest that we should have left the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, you go too far. The Taliban didn't have to face an American invasion. They could have kept their backwoods country, but they were too intertwined with Al Qaeda to kick AQ out and hand Osama over to the US after 9/11. Shall we go backwards in time to certain prominent historic events?

Attack on Pearl Harbor...US enters war against Japan and Germany. Germany escapes nuclear attack only by surrendering before the weapons were ready. Japan is not so lucky.

RMS Lusitania is sunk with Americans on board. The US demands Germany cease U-Boat warfare on commercial vessels regardless of flag. Zimmerman Telegram suggest German-Mexican alliance to divide America's attention and help Mexico recover lost territory. US eventually enters war and brings overwhelming force to bare on Germany...Germany surrenders.

USS Maine sinks in Havanna. US declares war on Spain and seizes Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam.

Confederate forces fire on Fort Sumter and ignite America's bloodiest war. Confederate states brought to ruin, Atlanta GA burned to the ground.

Mexican forces attack American forces in disputed territory. US declares war, takes over Mexico and forces Mexico to surrender the northern half of their claimed territories.


A long and well established series of massive retaliations when another government wrongs the US should have convinced the Taliban that their survival depended on rejecting Al Qaeda and handing Osama bin Laden over. Instead, they left the US with little other choice than removing them and their terrorist allies from power.

On July 4th, 2007 the 48 star flag was officially eclipsed by the 50 star flag for the most time in service of any US national flag. Since then, the 50 star flag has been increasing its record. If Puerto Rico joins the union, however, the July 3rd following Puerto Rico's admission to the Union would mark the end of the 50 star flag's reign.

A 2012 Referendum offered a two part vote. 54% of voters supported a change from the current status. 61% of those that chose to vote on the follow up question supported statehood over independence or free association. Funding was approved earlier this year for an up or down vote in a statehood referendum in Puerto Rico with the president required to submit legislation with 180 days if Puerto Rico votes for statehood.

Thoughts?

I find it funny how some people define threats. It is not merely those with the ability and the will to do physical harm to a country or its citizens that are threats. History has shown in fact that it is people who the rest of the world think incapable of bringing physical harm to the interests of a country that can in fact do the most damage. Countries put checks on those powers capable and willing to do them or their citizens physical harm, and so those countries that could/would do so just don't. They don't do harm until they receive a signal that the country they want to harm is not capable of defending themselves or is a paper tiger. How do they get those signals? When countries/strongmen that are several tiers below the abilities of their enemy continue to get away with poking their enemy, with ignoring their enemy, and with being a general nuisance (for lack of a better term) to their mutual enemy. What I'm talking about is prestige. For nations, prestige is an intangible asset of supreme importance.

Prestige is the combination of a nation's diplomatic record, military prowess, economic prowess, and fundamental resolve all rolled into one.

Prestige is how the United States got the United Kingdom to submit to arbitration in the territory dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela. The US told Britain that we were prepared to fight them if they chose war with Venezuela over arbitration. The UK knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US would declare on them if they declared on Venezuela. The UK also knew that America's record as a new power meant that they would likely be more ally than opponent in international affairs, provided that no war came between the two powers. Prestige, both America's and Britain's, led to arbitration and spared both a war that neither really wanted. They knew where the lines were drawn.

As a nation's prestige weakens, the lines are not so clear anymore. Strong nations won't risk it when the lines still appear clearly drawn. Egotistical dictators, however, sometimes find strength in annoying stronger powers and making then the scape goat to national problems. They poke the enemy and say they're weak and that they have achieved a victory so that their people believe it. The problem is that when a long history of these pokes is presented to the world, that larger country's resolve seems weaker. Suspicions arise that they're not the military power they once were and that they are not as capable of asserting their positions as they say they are. Afterall, an annoying little gnat is getting away with it.

Annoying gnat proves it's possible and a real threat takes advantage.

So, taking Saddam Hussein out was the right thing to do. Leaving weapons depots behind unguarded and undestroyed as you invaded was a strategic blunder. Believing that Iraq could be one country with anything short of a 25 year (read: long) commitment to military presence was unrealistic. Allowing Iraqi leaders to be elected and letting them write the constitution was just plain stupid. Constitution first, the people's approval (by super majority or by majority in each of the major areas) second, and the leaders last. (For the record, this is how any new democracy should do it.)

The thing about that bad intelligence is that we didn't know it was bad until after the fact. I don't know how you make a decision based upon information that you only obtain after you've made that decision.

spchavel,

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/...t-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

Why use my own words when Tony Blair brings up such good points. Saddam Hussein would not be a stabilizing force in today's Middle East and leaving him in power would not have stopped the uprisings.

Trucks that drive well, but are no longer saleable in California, thus increasing the supply of those trucks elsewhere and impacting price with a downward force.

Iraq's problem is that you don't have an Iraqi people. You have a Shiite populace that wants to lord it over the Sunni and Kurd populations. You have the Sunni populace that want's to lord it over the Shiite and Kurd population. You have the Kurd populace that would like nothing more than an excuse to take several parts of Iraq not recognized as being theirs and declare independence (ideally taking parts of Iran and Turkey with them, but they'll settle for Iraqi territory as a starting point). Then you have several other groups of varying degrees of size and strength that really just want to be free to live their own way and will support whomever let's them do that. Until these populations recognize each other as being fellow Iraqis, then it's hard to imagine how any government will effectively govern these territories and I'm not sure the Kurds will ever see themselves as being Iraqi. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.

My sincerely held beliefs are not swing vote politics. If the Republicans are not willing to change their position on liberty issues and the Democrats are not willing to change their views on the idea that government knows best, then perhaps it's time for the libertarian factions of the Republican and Democratic parties to vote with the actual Libertarian Party. On one side you have authoritarian social policies and on the other side you have authoritarian economic policies. Time to take both authoritarian modes of thought and shove them.

This is why the liberals want to do everything through the federal government, because it's a lot harder to leave the country than it is to leave a state.

I would say that I'm the new face of the Republican Party or, if necessary, a new party. I support gay marriage (if done by the consent of the people of a state or by state courts using the State Constitution and not by being imposed from on high [Federal Courts]). I oppose the death penalty (not for the truly guilty people, but the rare person wrongfully convicted). I am Pro-Life, excepting the defense of the life (life, not health because a pregnancy would be an inconvenience) of the mother; however, I am not going to stand outside an abortion clinic unless it's to hand out pamphlets offering alternatives and absolutely no condemnation whether they accept the papers or not. I want the government to pull back and society to step up because opportunities reduce inequality and increase everyone's wealth.

But for the love of my country, I would apply the same idea I apply at work to the Democrats/Liberals in the US. Give them what they want until they realize it's not really what they want. This would be so much easier than fighting the good fight and trying to restore principled, limited governance to the US.

So many ways to discuss this, but sadly none that would be fun to discuss here & merit a discussion.

*no further comment*

My prediction, the USA will not win the World Cup.

Brought to you by the Society of Duh.

I'll thank Obama the day after he leaves office...for getting out. He has one piece of significant legislation and that's collapsing under it's own "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" weight. Passed it, don't like it, and the most painful provisions haven't even been enacted in accordance with the Obamacare law. Oddly enough, as I write this, I'm listening to a song called "You're Tears are Comin'", that pretty much sums up those people who still like Obamacare.

"Well you have to pass it to find out what's in it." - Obamacare in a nutshell.

Never again...Never again should we let congress pass a bill and then find out what's in it.

The only logical way to deal with the exploding costs of healthcare is to eliminate the middleman from all predictable care needs (health insurance or universal government healthcare) and move to a system where catastrophic care is covered either through insurance or universal government catastrophic healthcare. Whether its insurance profits or government bureaucracy doesn't matter because they are both driving up the cost of care we will need; they are an added cost to predictable care and they add absolutely NO value. By allowing capitalism to drive the cost of predictable care to its lowest point, you can make county (in the US) healthcare clinics (that charge based on your ability to pay) more affordable to friends and neighbors that will want their communities to be better places to live generally (though they themselves won't use the clinics).

Anti-trust regulations. These regulations might need to be updated in the wake of moving insurance out of most of healthcare, but then you might just create incentives for doctors to move their practices closer to home because they no longer have to be part of a big company to have patients. They also no longer need the backing of pencil pushers that come with large organizations because the paperwork is a lot less when the patients pay on their own. Some of these areas unprofitable to corporations because they can make more money somewhere else may well provide enough business for a one doctor office.

A lot of healthcare is predictable and can be budgeted for when insurance companies are taken out of the equation. The best value proposition on health insurance is catastrophic care policies because you can't predict this and you can't budget for it, but it also has a low risk of occurring. Why should anyone come between the customer and the provider for needs that can be predicted. That just adds another body that has to be paid, whether it's the government or a health insurance company.

One American company's employees are scrambling for cover after Obamacare, because that company had some time ago decided that it was cheaper for them to just pay the entire cost of a catastrophic care insurance plan for their employees and put $1000 (or whatever it was) a year into a health savings account for their employees to pay for their predictable costs. The employees owned that health savings money and it always rolled over. They could use it to pay for doctors visits, against their catastrophic care deductible, prescriptions, etc. Over the years, some employees had accumulated $10,000+ in their accounts because they carefully monitored their costs with doctors and got discounts because their "insurance" consisted of swiping a payment card. Some employees could literally have a catastrophic health event and not pay a single dollar out of their personal money (their HSA could pay for the entirety of the deductible). This experiment in business recruitment and retention/healthcare has now been killed because of Obamacare.

Perhaps the best solution for the VA and everyone else is to re-privatize predictable healthcare to the customer and the provider (and NO ONE coming between them). Sure, for the VA, they may have to set payments for predictable care and their would be additional health problems that fall under "predictable", but that just means less to leave to the remaining VA health system.

Catastrophic Care insurance...and paying for all the other care yourself....in other words you pay the care provider.

A number of care providers in the US will offer significant discounts on care...if they don't have to deal with any insurance, be it government or private.

I'm not sure that we can necessarily blame the Democrats for failing the veterans any more or less than we can blame the Republicans. If we're going to say that legislators failed the veterans, then they all failed the veterans. We can assign specific blame to President Obama because he knew about VA problems since he took office and has failed to achieve the necessary reforms. The buck stops with President Obama. Others in the administration may or may not have blame for this situation (depending on their duties), but President Obama has responsibility for it all. President Obama has failed the veterans.

However, you are correct in linking Obamacare to this. The VA is a government run healthcare system in the US. The idea of a single payer system which Obamacare is threatening to collapse into is comparable to the VA system. Health insurance itself is merely a cloak put around healthcare. Turning health insurance into a single payer system turns the healthcare system into an effectively government run healthcare system. Single payer system = government run healthcare system = the VA system.

Alin, I for one, do not consider that you were criticizing the US. You're offering an opinion. My opinion differs.

Having a weapon for self defense can be the same as not having a weapon at all. If the criminal does not know that you have a weapon, then you don't have one. A concealed carry holder can choose to let the criminal's perception that they don't have a weapon stand or they can choose (at a time of their choosing) to reveal the weapon. Concealed carry holders have been responsible for stopping violence merely by drawing their weapons and letting it be known that the field has been leveled. Even in a confrontational situation where the concealed carry holder is not going to want to use their weapon (bystanders in the line of fire, etc.), the fact that they can first choose to reveal the weapon (or not) and then choose to use the weapon (or not) can make a big difference in the outcome of violent incidents. Of course, such violent public incidents are not common.

The more common incident is one in which a criminal confronts a person on their own or in a small group. Even here, weapons holders have choices. It does not necessarily make things more dangerous to let people have these choices.

The thing about committing crime (such as a home invasion) is that the perpetrator is going to want to establish control before they do anything else. This presents time for an armed homeowner to get their weapon and defend themselves, provided the perpetrator isn't just a psycho.

In a public place, the thing about concealed carry is that perpetrators don't know who is armed and who is not armed. The same rules apply, unless the perpetrator is a psycho, then people will have time to get their weapon and react.

If someone is concealed carrying, they have the choice of when they draw their weapon. Likewise, if a homeowner has a weapon hidden somewhere in the home, then they have the choice of when to get that weapon and use it. Even if you have a weapon, it can be just like you don't have a weapon at all if you choose not to get it and not to use it.

I strongly advocate for School Resource Officers in all high schools. Depending on circumstances it may also be a good idea to have SROs serving multiple school duty with middle schools and elementary schools; in some cases, it may be possible to just assign a HS SRO to also serve a couple other middle or elementary schools. All high schools, however, should have an SRO based at the school.

No dec, no war, no more. This shall be the policy of the Society of Players that Want to Read War Declarations. Join Today @ jkjk.SOPWReaWrD.ee

SOPWReaWrD ftw!

A topfeed will remain defined based solely on the land amount that each country has until this definition is no longer meaningful. It has meaning because it defines an action that has a set of likely consequences if you choose to do it. People are free to take whatever actions they want on this server, but they must also be prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. People should be able to defend their countries, but defending their country can mean using their alliance (as this is an alliance server) to exact a price for another country's actions that deter those actions in the future.

I think this is a case of...let the market decide. The markets will decide if a no-tipping sit down restaurant experience works. I do think that any owner who does this system will have to keep an eye on customer service more than a tipping restaurant because the servers won't have immediate feedback from customers.

On this note, I do avoid restaurants that expect me to pay for my meal, including tip up front (when paying by card). It may only be an all-you-can-eat buffet, but let me have the experience and then decide how much I'm going to tip if you're going to have tips.

I oppose it, but i think we have to be careful to define that having grab pacts which allow for random grabs between alliances and landtrading are not the same thing.

Landtrading is organized between two countries who reach an agreement and ensure that both sides benefit from the arrangement.

I think this guy might be onto something, but perhaps he should let people know some of the charities that he intends to donate to. I think if a restaurant I went to made it known that they paid a living wage and did not want any tips to their servers/staff, I might still be inclined to leave a tip for them to donate to charity if they do a really great job. At this point, you could make it $2 or 5%-10% of the bill for a donation to charity if the servers/cooks do a really great job.

I say go for it, but let people know some of the charities you're going to donate to.

In all honesty, I don't know what Canadian companies are like, but if you politely make it clear that you will seek a different answer from someone higher in authority, that might be considered a complaint and give the manager on duty the power to refund the phone. If they need to contact the store manager, tell them that you'll wait for them to get the manager on the phone and talk to them.

Depending on the company, providing good customer service may give the manager on duty the necessary justification to return the phone. If you go in, make sure you are talking to whomever the manager on duty is, even if you're just getting contact information for the store manager and/or owner, etc.

thanks again.

Thanks in advance

You can protest the speaker without protesting their speech. You don't, afterall, have to listen to a person's speech. You can choose not to attend. You can engage in debates before the graduation, etc. These students were trying to silence someone they disagreed with, plain and simple. In doing so, they levied an attack on their fellow students and on the idea of freedom of speech.

If Hugo Chavez had been invited to speak at my graduation, I would simply have refused to attend. I wouldn't have been trying to silence him, merely to not be present when he spoke.

I think this just about wraps this thread up, folks.