SchmSte8

1 HP is equal to 746 watts. This bike has a battery pack of 14400 watts, so it can run the bike for an hour at 19.3 HP; to get the 141 HP rating it'd need to fully recharge after a little over 8 minutes of using it. Further, by their very nature, electric motors produce gobs more torque than HP. To show this all you have to do is remember that Torque=(HP/RPM)*63025. If it produces 10 HP @ 250 RPM it's making 2521 ft lbs of torque; just a little higher than the 115 it says.

With that said, I think it'd still be a blast to ride.

If you exclude the fact that these are government employees, would you have a problem with the unions paying for political advertisements? There is a simple hole in his logic too; it's no longer your money once it's doled out. I can give you $2000 for work that you did. You can then spend that money on whatever you want. I could try to take credit for where it was spent, yet the money came from you and not me, so that'd go over like a lead balloon. You cannot skip the intermediaries to get the the outcome to fit the story.

If everyone was nationalistic there would be no one to question the government to help maintain the liberties that we have. It's in periods of intense national pride from whence erosions of our liberties start (think PATRIOT Act, the Japanese American internment). Had it not been for people that were acting in an unpatriotic and unnationalistic manner, there would be no US.

I would also mention that Zarkane says, "Sure. I suppose one could twist the First Amendments "freedom of speech" to cover sitting down when the Flag passes." I should like him to read West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624), as it was decided by the Supreme Court that says it's unlawful to make it compulsory for children in school to salute the flag and pledge allegiance by means of the first amendment. They further go on to say that it's not an allowable method of achieving "national unity". So, in short, yes, it is a lawful usage of your first amendment right to not salute the flag.

I, for one, am proud that I cannot be forced to salute something that may stand for something other than that I stand. I've invoked this right several times over the course of my life so far, sometimes it's been disdained but mostly it's been looked at as it was intended, a criticism of what we, as a nation, have become.

This is completely inaccurate. Libertarianism is essentially the idea that we are free to do as we want without infringing upon the liberties of others, e.g., robbing them. We don't say that there is no need for government, because there is.

How do you define infrastructure? As the basic facilities, services and installations. The police provide a service, they're (supposed) to protect our liberties. We need electricity and water, so these utilities are installations; we all have the liberty to live. Roads and highways? Most of us are capable of earning money.

One of aunts is a tad slow, but she studied hard and ended up getting a degree and is now respected in her profession, even going so far to teach classes. Work ethic comes in different forms, some of us are more apt at one particular thing than another. I suck at sports and wouldn't expect to get paid for that. But, on the other hand I'm going to law school, by my own work and I'm going to pay for it by my own means.

Another one of my aunts has absolutely no desire to work. She works part time as a supermarket cashier, bringing home maybe $5000 a year gross. My uncle brings home $20000 a year gross. My father has offered to get him into a position where he would at least double that and maybe triple it. But my aunt told my uncle to say no. Instead my family has to pay for their house maintenance, we have to give them cars, we have to pay their bills and we have to listen to them complain about money as they go and live beyond their means. This sounds an awful lot like they're expecting everything to be handed to them. In the same token, one of my cousins and his girlfriend are completely capable of holding jobs. But they didn't. They got aid from the state, county, and city to pay their bills. Only, they didn't use it for that; it went to other pleasures. In some instances it's fair for aid, such as the disabled.

Libertarianism recognizes the idea that not everyone is equal. I don't believe in equality of outcome, but I believe in equality of opportunity plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/ [plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/] ).

An article dealing with cars companies, their sizes and the GDP.

Why Ferraris are red, Aston Martins are green, Mercedes-Benzes are silver and Fords are White with blue stripes.

Stolen and not cited from:

tv.msn.com/culinary-picks-and-pans [tv.msn.com/culinary-picks-and-pans]

Absolutely worthless without sources.

But, seeing as how it's an opinion piece (for the most part) it's hard to source it out.

And remember, though you may fraternize with particular people, it doesn't mean that you are like them. I hang around with people of nefarious demeanor occasionally, they've criminal records (including killing people). Does this mean that I'm a murderer? Nope, I've never committed a crime (here in WI, traffic offenses are considered non-criminal).

To one person the idea of qualifications may vary greatly than to another person. I study law (constitutional is actually what I've studied most of), I'm going to be an attorney.

This also changes what I think of qualifications. This is why I think that pieces without sources are worthless. In writing opinions, courts relies on citations from previous cases. In classes, if I can't provide the case from which I'm using a principle it doesn't count as an answer.