StrangeSox

That quote is what the College Republican leader reported him as saying. The main contention was that there were no flags to represent the other nationalities that were killed. I was merely guessing at his motives, implying that we don't know what they were and melting down over it seems pretty ridiculous. If you read the partial email quotes provided in that article, that's exactly what they're saying: include Israeli flags for dead Israelis, Irish flags for dead Irish, etc. Various other memorials are planned around campus without issue, so this is hardly about "shunning patriots." We have no reliable source for what Dr. Pastoor actually gave as his reasoning.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) With a quick google search, it looks to be significant. I found one all ecompassing figure of $133 billion from 2001. With 10 years to add on to that, I am sure that means we are somewhere between $200 and $250 billion. http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/mag...rovocateur.html Yearly reports by the ASCE decry just how far behind we are in maintenance and upgrades. http://blogs.asce.org/govrel/

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) He's not even talking about individual victims in that point. He's talking about what Chinese and Muslim students would think of a display of American flags. And frankly, I just don't see why we're supposed to give a s*** about that. The university wants to attract foreign students? I dunno. That snippet of the email sounds pretty dumb (don't see the whole thing linked in that article), but his specific reasoning for suggesting additional flags is kinda tangential to whether or not inclusion of the other flags is appropriate.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Then we should put out 2,730 flags. Let the Israelis and the Brits fly their flags for their victims on their turf. Regardless, this wasn't an attack on either of those countries or any country other than America. So I don't know why we need to go about acting like this was an attack on the world because some other nationalities perished. We were attacked and all we need is American flags. See, I find this abhorrent but at least it makes more sense than commemorating a dead Brit with an American flag. Why would commemorating all of the victims of 9/11 be a bad thing?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) That is appeasement. Why exactly are we obligated to care how those people feel about American flags? They're visitors here. They can suck it up or leave. Pastoor is just trying to kiss ass. As if being nice to them and bowing to all of their perceived sensitivities will make them like us more or something. You call it what you want. I'll call it appeasement. Appeasement of what? I think you're misunderstanding his view here. It's not that people would be offended by the presence of the American flag. It's going to be all over the place this weekend and probably a few weeks afterwards. There were numerous other events planned on campus without issue that will presumably feature a lot of pro-America patriotism. His point is that if you're going to commemorate the individual victims of 9/11, don't ignore who these people actually were. Representing them with an American flag just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

He did answer your original question, you kinda shifted it later. Please note that there is not a single topic that ss2k5 and I agree on.

Profits aren't generated without consequences. Sometimes those consequences are literally death. to be fair I don't really know what rex meant with that comment.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Call it what you want. But al-Qaeda didn't set out that day saying, "hey, we're gonna go murder a Bermudan today!" They set out to murder Americans. And that's what they did. And they murdered 247 non-Americans whose lives are worth no less than the Americans killed. No one was saying don't commemorate Americans or put out the American flag, just that if you're going to put out flags for every individual, at least get their nationality right.

your original question was when was the last time money was spent rebuilding roads, to which ss2k5 correctly responded "all the time always" whether that's an adequate amount is anotehr question.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) That profit needs a "consequence" said a lot, as if it were murder or something. Negative externalities.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) That is a complete change of subject. We pay that bill every time we go to the gas pump or go through a toll booth. Partially, the gas tax seriously underfunds road construction and maintenance costs.

The dismissal of the lives of non-Americans as "collateral" is pretty insulting, too.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) So a web site is more of "source" than a book? And since both of those books are on my Kindle, I can't give you a page #.. Fernald, J. G. (1999). "Roads to Prosperity? Assessing the Link Between Pubic Capital and Productivity." American Economic Review 89(3): 619-638.

If the flags are meant to represent the individual victims, wouldn't it make sense to represent them with a flag of their own nationality? I mean, just from a respect for the actual victims perspective that seems like it should be non-controversial to me. If you were killed in the 7-7-05 attacks in London, wouldn't you rather be remembered with an American flag instead of the union jack?

The assumption I am talking about is that the "risk takers" are entitled to all profits and that labor is only entitled to whatever wage they can negotiate, not the actual profits of their labor. Liberty is tied in strongly with economic freedom and agency, as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Which is my whole problem with the discussion. Whether or not you think it's actually a problem is a separate issue from "what caused the change." Something obviously did. That assumption cuts both ways.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) I'm not the one trying claim no one has taken any risk since Jimmy Carter left office. No one's said that. I've asked what's materially different about risk in 1950 and 1990 if you're going to use "risk" as your explanation for the stagnation of wages. You've just kept repeating "risk" and then gave a moral justification for business owners to do as they please with all profits, which still doesn't really address the question of why wages stagnated.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) I'm saying it doesn't matter what caused the shift. It is immaterial to my point, which is why are you obligated to someone else's risk. The discussion was about what caused the shift, not moral justification for it.

You still haven't actually answered the question: what caused the shift in the 80's? You keep saying "risk" without explaining what actually changed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) Was someone holding a gun to their head when they bought a Hyundai instead of a Pontiac? Then yes, it is their fault. NAFTA: the fault of the middle class

idk I was just saying it took almost zero effort to find it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Why should you? Why are you entitled to someone else's risk taking? You haven't explained where the additional risk is coming in that means I should get even less of a share of profits than I was before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Both of which are mostly their own damned faults for not supporting industries which use high priced labor. If people really believed in that stuff, they would put their money where their mouths are. Globalization of labor and supply markets are the "fault" of the American lower and middle class? Huh?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) That's just it. They aren't entitled to it. They pay a wage to obtain it, just like they pay for any of the machines that provide them productivity. Ok, so, why has the wage not increased with productivity? If I'm generating more profits for the corporation, why should I not be entitled to a share? Why should I get even less of a share of the profits generated from my labor than I was the year before?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) Not to mention the consumers have benefited from lower prices from most technologies. at the expense of their own jobs and exploding household debt!