In a prison state throwing pot smokers in jail is good for business. Fills up the private prisons with mellow prisoners rather then hardened violent ones that cost money to guard and they make better workers then the hardened prisoners. Considering that most American exports are made with slave, I mean convict labour, imagine what it would do to the GDP, balance of trade and stock of the prison industry. Pot smokers are also more likely to be dissidents and it is much easier to get around the Constitution by screaming about drugs then busting people out right for their political views.
At least where I am, profits and losses can be averaged out over 5 years IIRC (perhaps 3 yr) so profit can be put aside for a few years then spent on a large expense. Make $250,000 a year over 3 years and in the third year spend $450,000 on a large expense like expansion of your business and income for those 3 years is $100,000. It does take a bit of planning but business should be planning anyways.
Much like a passenger in a car with a driver who thinks he can't afford to slow down and a washed out bridge ahead. Not braking means that you're likely to be worse off. Perhaps the reports of the bridge being washed out are wrong or its been fixed but in the absence of knowing it is stupid to keep your foot hard on the accelerator and the passenger is going to bitch.
Income is usually what is left after paying employees and other business expenses. Make $265,000, hire a new employee for $20,000 and now you made $245,000. This is why high taxes bring prosperity, businesses including sole proprietorships are motivated to reinvest their money in their business rather then declare it as income and pay it as taxes. Now with super low taxes businesses are hoarding or gambling their money rather then spending it.
One of the big reasons we pay so much is that the Americans charge us a lot and our government discourages Canadian refineries. The attitude of our current governments is sell the raw materials, get dividends to replace the lack of taxes from lack of good jobs (every oil job is balanced by 30 manufacturing jobs lost) and screw most Canadians as they only need 1/3 of voters to vote them a 5yr dictatorship. At least in BC, we have to pay for medical unless poor and that has been going up like crazy so income taxes on the rich and business can go down. It is still much cheaper then in America due to it being run by the government rather then multiple businesses that have huge administrative costs and need to make a good profit. It is also amazing the savings from removing most of the lawyers from the equation. We are getting some new businesses, coal mines and such being run by Chinese and Indonesian companies but of course they claim that no-one in N. America knows how to mine so they're importing Chinese workers. Seems not only do the Chinese workers work cheap but they'll also pay quite a bit of money to work in Canada. Back to the 19th century where the workers pay for the chance to live in the company town and make less then they pay.
I don't know much about Australia but around here the original owners of the country who happen to be a different race made a deal to sell their land on a payment plan and now the buyers are trying to weasel out of making their payments. How would you feel if you sold something on a payment plan and as soon as the buyer occupied the property you sold started claiming that due to your race you shouldn't get paid? It is a problem with payment plans but when you're dealing with someone who doesn't recognize that pieces of paper or chunks of rock have value you're reduced to barter and when taking someones lively hood they're going to want something of equal value in return.
Partially true. For example both Romney and Obama probably cared a lot who won the presidency whereas those pulling the strings only cared that the Paulians and various third parties were removed from the running. The parties while subservient to the powers that be do still have quite a bit of power and want their golden retirement plan.
Well rouge is the colour of political parties that preach one thing while doing the opposite, usually making things free for the common person while concentrating power in the powerful. Of course most political parties are doing that. I see that your user name is a synonym for the rouge avenger:)
Well as all of your list also works very well for catching dissidents they'll all eventually be implemented. Dissidents are a much bigger threat to the established powers then terrorists.
Probably be a lot less deaths then the American revolution of 1861. Has their ever been a case of a violent revolution improving things besides the odd one that ended up as a successful war of separation? Most successful revolutions seem to be the majority of the population doing civil disobedience with minimal violence and even that only works some of the times.
Barium used for ingestion is quite pure barium sulphate which is quite rare to find naturally and quite hard to refine. The barium used for drilling is not so pure but very common and cheap.
Actually it was a Bush program. He signed it into law on Oct 3, 2008 for $700 Billion. The Obama administration reduced it to $475 Billion and payed out $431 Billion. Much better then the savings and loan payout in terms of GDP (Reagan and Bush the first payed out 3.2% of GDP compared to less then 1% of GDP payed out by the Obama administration). The TARP fund thing is a good example of how repeating an untruth often enough makes people think it is true. Another example is the right claiming fiscal responsibility though in reality they just blow money on something different then the left. Figures pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program but available lots of places.
Using the example of the brick layer. I'd expect if a brick layer got killed before getting payed by his last employer I'd expect the heirs to get that money including if the payment was going to be a percentage of sales of the building that the brick layer built. When my Dad died (a simple machinist) my Mom got his pension which was part of his remuneration for working. If he'd died a couple of years earlier, she would have got his life insurance which was also part of his work place remuneration and if she'd died at the same time my siblings and myself would have got his insurance payout. Up until recently remuneration packages like this were quite common to get good workers and in my Dads example, when the company he worked for out sourced they went from profitable to unprofitable (management did make nice bonuses from selling the land that the factory occupied) as paying workers $8 an hour without any benefits is not the way to get good workers. (His job was outsourced to Phoenix, frigging NAFTA)
I was thinking more of heirs that depended on the authour for support. Write a book, get killed in an accident kind of thing or get diagnosed with cancer at a young age. I agree that your children shouldn't be able to relax for the rest of their life but not sure if I agree about them not getting a start in life. Even a third party such as your publisher should perhaps get a short chance to make the money back that they advanced or invested. The key in all cases is that copyright should be short, not the bastardized version we have now where Elvis makes more money dead then he ever did alive.
Sure tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority and even get their start democratically (even soviet started out as a democratic institution) but guns never stop it. The Iraqi Kurd were fairly well armed, the American Indian was well armed, lots of arms in Central and South America. There hasn't really been any cases that an armed citizenry has defeated tyranny, usually they just use their weapons to tyrannize.
Of course now the gun owners are more likely to use those guns to implement a tyranny. Look at your sig, you consider paying for goods received to be theft. Perhaps next you'll decide that forcing people to pay for goods received to be a good reason to use your weaponry to bring about a tyranny.
One common comparison is Vancouver vs Seattle, quite similar in culture. Once you remove gun deaths, the crime comparison is pretty similar. BTW Columbine had armed guards and it was just luck they didn't shoot any kids. Personally I used to be pro gun ownership but every time I've had bullets fly by me due to some idiot playing around I've become more anti-gun. I've never had a knife go flying by my head but have had about dozen bullets fly by me. Gun owner lists are good so when one of your neighbours obviously doesn't have any respect for his weapon, the neighbours can shove the gun up his ass.
In the 18th century it was generally considered bad for the government to have a standing army as that army could be used on the citizens. The American constitution alludes to that by only reluctantly giving the government the power to have a standing army. Historically the people (at least the free people) were considered to have an obligation to be armed for the purposes of being a militia. It is now the 21st century, your government has a huge standing army, the second amendment is outdated much as slavery is.
Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government. Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse. Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
For it to be a good analogy would be if the Russians had been routinely going to Mars for a century or so and also routinely blew up American spacecraft going to Mars. Then Columbus against all known evidence decided that Mars was really half the distance by going the opposite way and through pure luck hit another planet that was much like Mars but much closer. At the time of Columbus, going east to the Indies was common but the Portuguese had a monopoly on the route that they enforced with cannon and Columbus decided that everyone was wrong about the size of the Earth so it was practical to go west to get to the Indies. He lucked out that their was a large mass of land part way and he honestly believed he'd made it to the East Indies.
Slashdot Mirror
In a prison state throwing pot smokers in jail is good for business. Fills up the private prisons with mellow prisoners rather then hardened violent ones that cost money to guard and they make better workers then the hardened prisoners. Considering that most American exports are made with slave, I mean convict labour, imagine what it would do to the GDP, balance of trade and stock of the prison industry. Pot smokers are also more likely to be dissidents and it is much easier to get around the Constitution by screaming about drugs then busting people out right for their political views.
How long before store bought pot also has 600 or so additives? I'd guess at that point pot induced lung cancer will go up just as it did with tobacco.
At least where I am, profits and losses can be averaged out over 5 years IIRC (perhaps 3 yr) so profit can be put aside for a few years then spent on a large expense. Make $250,000 a year over 3 years and in the third year spend $450,000 on a large expense like expansion of your business and income for those 3 years is $100,000. It does take a bit of planning but business should be planning anyways.
Much like a passenger in a car with a driver who thinks he can't afford to slow down and a washed out bridge ahead. Not braking means that you're likely to be worse off. Perhaps the reports of the bridge being washed out are wrong or its been fixed but in the absence of knowing it is stupid to keep your foot hard on the accelerator and the passenger is going to bitch.
Income is usually what is left after paying employees and other business expenses. Make $265,000, hire a new employee for $20,000 and now you made $245,000.
This is why high taxes bring prosperity, businesses including sole proprietorships are motivated to reinvest their money in their business rather then declare it as income and pay it as taxes. Now with super low taxes businesses are hoarding or gambling their money rather then spending it.
One of the big reasons we pay so much is that the Americans charge us a lot and our government discourages Canadian refineries. The attitude of our current governments is sell the raw materials, get dividends to replace the lack of taxes from lack of good jobs (every oil job is balanced by 30 manufacturing jobs lost) and screw most Canadians as they only need 1/3 of voters to vote them a 5yr dictatorship.
At least in BC, we have to pay for medical unless poor and that has been going up like crazy so income taxes on the rich and business can go down. It is still much cheaper then in America due to it being run by the government rather then multiple businesses that have huge administrative costs and need to make a good profit. It is also amazing the savings from removing most of the lawyers from the equation.
We are getting some new businesses, coal mines and such being run by Chinese and Indonesian companies but of course they claim that no-one in N. America knows how to mine so they're importing Chinese workers. Seems not only do the Chinese workers work cheap but they'll also pay quite a bit of money to work in Canada. Back to the 19th century where the workers pay for the chance to live in the company town and make less then they pay.
I don't know much about Australia but around here the original owners of the country who happen to be a different race made a deal to sell their land on a payment plan and now the buyers are trying to weasel out of making their payments. How would you feel if you sold something on a payment plan and as soon as the buyer occupied the property you sold started claiming that due to your race you shouldn't get paid?
It is a problem with payment plans but when you're dealing with someone who doesn't recognize that pieces of paper or chunks of rock have value you're reduced to barter and when taking someones lively hood they're going to want something of equal value in return.
Partially true. For example both Romney and Obama probably cared a lot who won the presidency whereas those pulling the strings only cared that the Paulians and various third parties were removed from the running. The parties while subservient to the powers that be do still have quite a bit of power and want their golden retirement plan.
Well rouge is the colour of political parties that preach one thing while doing the opposite, usually making things free for the common person while concentrating power in the powerful. Of course most political parties are doing that. :)
I see that your user name is a synonym for the rouge avenger
Well as all of your list also works very well for catching dissidents they'll all eventually be implemented. Dissidents are a much bigger threat to the established powers then terrorists.
Probably be a lot less deaths then the American revolution of 1861. Has their ever been a case of a violent revolution improving things besides the odd one that ended up as a successful war of separation?
Most successful revolutions seem to be the majority of the population doing civil disobedience with minimal violence and even that only works some of the times.
Barium used for ingestion is quite pure barium sulphate which is quite rare to find naturally and quite hard to refine. The barium used for drilling is not so pure but very common and cheap.
Eat seaweed for your iodine. Personally I regularly eat dulse, kelp is also common and used like salt by some.
Here the reflective markers are sunken so plows don't hurt them. They help the most when it's raining which it does a lot here.
Actually it was a Bush program. He signed it into law on Oct 3, 2008 for $700 Billion. The Obama administration reduced it to $475 Billion and payed out $431 Billion. Much better then the savings and loan payout in terms of GDP (Reagan and Bush the first payed out 3.2% of GDP compared to less then 1% of GDP payed out by the Obama administration).
The TARP fund thing is a good example of how repeating an untruth often enough makes people think it is true. Another example is the right claiming fiscal responsibility though in reality they just blow money on something different then the left.
Figures pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program but available lots of places.
Do you honestly think everyone in prison is guilty?
Using the example of the brick layer. I'd expect if a brick layer got killed before getting payed by his last employer I'd expect the heirs to get that money including if the payment was going to be a percentage of sales of the building that the brick layer built.
When my Dad died (a simple machinist) my Mom got his pension which was part of his remuneration for working. If he'd died a couple of years earlier, she would have got his life insurance which was also part of his work place remuneration and if she'd died at the same time my siblings and myself would have got his insurance payout. Up until recently remuneration packages like this were quite common to get good workers and in my Dads example, when the company he worked for out sourced they went from profitable to unprofitable (management did make nice bonuses from selling the land that the factory occupied) as paying workers $8 an hour without any benefits is not the way to get good workers. (His job was outsourced to Phoenix, frigging NAFTA)
I was thinking more of heirs that depended on the authour for support. Write a book, get killed in an accident kind of thing or get diagnosed with cancer at a young age.
I agree that your children shouldn't be able to relax for the rest of their life but not sure if I agree about them not getting a start in life. Even a third party such as your publisher should perhaps get a short chance to make the money back that they advanced or invested.
The key in all cases is that copyright should be short, not the bastardized version we have now where Elvis makes more money dead then he ever did alive.
Sure tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority and even get their start democratically (even soviet started out as a democratic institution) but guns never stop it. The Iraqi Kurd were fairly well armed, the American Indian was well armed, lots of arms in Central and South America. There hasn't really been any cases that an armed citizenry has defeated tyranny, usually they just use their weapons to tyrannize.
Of course now the gun owners are more likely to use those guns to implement a tyranny. Look at your sig, you consider paying for goods received to be theft. Perhaps next you'll decide that forcing people to pay for goods received to be a good reason to use your weaponry to bring about a tyranny.
One common comparison is Vancouver vs Seattle, quite similar in culture. Once you remove gun deaths, the crime comparison is pretty similar.
BTW Columbine had armed guards and it was just luck they didn't shoot any kids.
Personally I used to be pro gun ownership but every time I've had bullets fly by me due to some idiot playing around I've become more anti-gun. I've never had a knife go flying by my head but have had about dozen bullets fly by me. Gun owner lists are good so when one of your neighbours obviously doesn't have any respect for his weapon, the neighbours can shove the gun up his ass.
In the 18th century it was generally considered bad for the government to have a standing army as that army could be used on the citizens. The American constitution alludes to that by only reluctantly giving the government the power to have a standing army. Historically the people (at least the free people) were considered to have an obligation to be armed for the purposes of being a militia. It is now the 21st century, your government has a huge standing army, the second amendment is outdated much as slavery is.
That's true, only a well armed minority can push its agenda on the majority.
Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government.
Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse.
Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
For it to be a good analogy would be if the Russians had been routinely going to Mars for a century or so and also routinely blew up American spacecraft going to Mars. Then Columbus against all known evidence decided that Mars was really half the distance by going the opposite way and through pure luck hit another planet that was much like Mars but much closer.
At the time of Columbus, going east to the Indies was common but the Portuguese had a monopoly on the route that they enforced with cannon and Columbus decided that everyone was wrong about the size of the Earth so it was practical to go west to get to the Indies. He lucked out that their was a large mass of land part way and he honestly believed he'd made it to the East Indies.