Wow, you really trust government to do all that? Despite all the evidence to the contrary? As one intelligent person to another, please read something interesting.
You can think whatever you want. Bottom line is that I'm forced to give them my money or I face violence done to my person. There is nothing voluntary about the money I give them. I call that theft. The fact that you think some one of my age (26) is going to see any SS or Medicare money come back to me tells me you are clearly not in touch with the shit-storm that is coming. On top of that, they would never give me a handout because I will never need a handout.
But you are right about one thing. The problems we see today will not be fixed with charities. Charities from the private sector, nor from the government. There will always be some at some disadvantage. Giving them money only enables them to ignore the problem at hand. Same rule applies to your children, to your neighbors, to your city and to wall-street. The way you "force" people to solve their problems is by forcing them to accept the reality of their situation, not sparing them the lesson... If you wanted to give them education and education only I could see the value in that, but all to often they get things that allow them to coast through life.
I can see you and I will pretty much continue to disagree so fire away with the last word.
Ok so I pay 28% in total to the Federal Government. I'd still call it tax(or theft) because I'm never going to see any SS or Medicare money. And no I didn't include Local Property or Income Tax either.
Why am I the one doing something wrong? The money is being taken from me. If I had the option of not paying and still retaining my liberty, you don't think I would do it?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should pay more than me. What I am saying is that there should be less tax on individual citizens. To do that we need less government. It's pretty easy to understand...
With all the funds already at its disposal, plus a healthy amount of credit, the US Government still has not addressed national problems in any real significance.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
I'm not saying the solution is Democratic, Republican, Conservative, or Liberal. I'm just saying those have been tried and failed. I say try the open source approach and give everybody something that works for the most part, and let them change it however they see fit. Isn't that the power of distributed development? Why does the biggest, fattest federal government in the world have to come up with the one solution to fit the various problems? I personally don't think they can do it. Right now with the US Federal Government the way it is, States can't do jack to develop their own solutions because there are too many solutions that are force upon them that are not as good a fit as could be made by tailoring the solution to the State. But the Federal Government won't have any alteration; the State's hands are tied. If the Federal Government wasn't taking all those tax dollars, the States could still constitutionally tax an equivalent amount, and they would have the working capital to try whatever those citizens found to be just and fare.
Or at least that's the way it was designed to be...
Theft if theft. I'm by no means rich, but I pay 28% of my income to the government and something tells me not even a whole 1% actually helps care for poor children... dropping bombs, invading countries, corporate bailouts, welfare to able bodies, spying on citizens...
Need I go on about the various horrors that the wealth I make for 2hours and 20minutes out of every day enables? Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?
... Thanks for reading the first sentence of my post. I really appreciate your time and reading comprehension spent on it. I think you might find it more enjoyable if you read the second part of my post in which we agree. kthnxbye.
True. But shouldn't you still tell the truth and just put down what you studied instead of trying to get some kind of second-hand recognition. If they quiz you a little bit on what you studied and what you've done with that knowledge it will become painfully evident if you know what you are talking about or not.
Woa... Unlike you I didn't jump to conclusions and asked for a clarification question on his position.
But maybe you should read my post from above before you make more guesses about how I think.
But, yes for the most part I do agree with you, although I think it's more fascism without a figurehead. But really we are just arguing shades of evil at that point.
I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.
No need to apologize, in this day and age you should be congratulated.
I agree with you basic assessment of Corporations in the fact that they are more or less headless entities. They are a collective which is treated as an individual. If I had my way there would be no such thing as publicly owned companies. But that's my simple summation of it, and I realize it wouldn't solve everything, but when you can hang your ire on a single man, and that single man knows that the ire of some 300 million people is directed at him for the decisions he makes, and the decide who to give the money to every second of every day, it tends to put moral men in charge of the companies. First and foremost I'm a firm believer in individualism, so the idea that I would sell parts of any company I make to people I don't know really really bugs me.
When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?
Please don't read this as a troll I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the matter.
Essentially you and I can agree on a number of things although I would add Atlas Shrugged to that list, and I would say "People who do not think are taking over the world."
I'm curious as to how far apart our view points are while still arriving at a similar estimation of the problem. That will be the true test of how bad it is.
True. But if you are talking about beliefs in the general sense, there are very few rational (by my terms, others may have their own...) philosophies or religions that don't have belief in an identifiable 'self' as such.
How's this trolling? A little bit of an bromide but... My brothers Diesel Jetta gets 45 to 40mpg as a commuter, it has tons more torque. And just to clarify, he doesn't milk it, he drives it like he stole it day in and day out. And no matter how much luggage he carries, he gets about the same mpg for the same driving(city/hwy that is).
And also: Who is considering the Carbon foot print to make these cars instead of using the ones we have until they are dust? Buying a new car is probably the most irresponsible thing to do. Buy an old, used car, keep it tuned. And it will cost you less to purchase.
I would actually hope the shorter commercials would advertise non-concrete things.Generally concrete objects deserve the time to explain what they are and why they are better.
MS would have done better to just toss up Bill G. and Seinfeld handing out laptops for 15 seconds to a group of inner city school kids with a Microsoft logo in the corner. Nothing else, that's it. Then when every one asks why so short, they could say "We were going to use 30 seconds but we had to pay for handing out laptops."
I don't agree with altruism in general (especially redistribution of wealth by the government), but even that would have made me stop and think.
Taken as a parody of modern life, it was indeed funny. But most people I knew saw it and expressed a desire for their lives to be as interesting. So maybe I don't despise the show... Just people...
Maybe they should have put more time in making the OS enjoyable rather than the questionably enjoyable commercial. The direct approach almost always works better when you have access to it. Unless they came to the realization that Vista is the pinnacle of Microsoft OS achievement and decided to take an indirect approach to boost what they can...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you really trust government to do all that? Despite all the evidence to the contrary? As one intelligent person to another, please read something interesting.
You can think whatever you want. Bottom line is that I'm forced to give them my money or I face violence done to my person. There is nothing voluntary about the money I give them. I call that theft. The fact that you think some one of my age (26) is going to see any SS or Medicare money come back to me tells me you are clearly not in touch with the shit-storm that is coming. On top of that, they would never give me a handout because I will never need a handout.
But you are right about one thing. The problems we see today will not be fixed with charities. Charities from the private sector, nor from the government. There will always be some at some disadvantage. Giving them money only enables them to ignore the problem at hand. Same rule applies to your children, to your neighbors, to your city and to wall-street. The way you "force" people to solve their problems is by forcing them to accept the reality of their situation, not sparing them the lesson... If you wanted to give them education and education only I could see the value in that, but all to often they get things that allow them to coast through life.
I can see you and I will pretty much continue to disagree so fire away with the last word.
Ok so I pay 28% in total to the Federal Government. I'd still call it tax(or theft) because I'm never going to see any SS or Medicare money. And no I didn't include Local Property or Income Tax either.
Why am I the one doing something wrong? The money is being taken from me. If I had the option of not paying and still retaining my liberty, you don't think I would do it?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should pay more than me. What I am saying is that there should be less tax on individual citizens. To do that we need less government. It's pretty easy to understand...
He will just argue that he is the more charitable than most.
He gets the poor what they need.
Never mind who it was taken from.
With all the funds already at its disposal, plus a healthy amount of credit, the US Government still has not addressed national problems in any real significance.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
I'm not saying the solution is Democratic, Republican, Conservative, or Liberal. I'm just saying those have been tried and failed. I say try the open source approach and give everybody something that works for the most part, and let them change it however they see fit. Isn't that the power of distributed development? Why does the biggest, fattest federal government in the world have to come up with the one solution to fit the various problems? I personally don't think they can do it. Right now with the US Federal Government the way it is, States can't do jack to develop their own solutions because there are too many solutions that are force upon them that are not as good a fit as could be made by tailoring the solution to the State. But the Federal Government won't have any alteration; the State's hands are tied. If the Federal Government wasn't taking all those tax dollars, the States could still constitutionally tax an equivalent amount, and they would have the working capital to try whatever those citizens found to be just and fare.
Or at least that's the way it was designed to be...
Theft if theft. I'm by no means rich, but I pay 28% of my income to the government and something tells me not even a whole 1% actually helps care for poor children... dropping bombs, invading countries, corporate bailouts, welfare to able bodies, spying on citizens...
Need I go on about the various horrors that the wealth I make for 2hours and 20minutes out of every day enables? Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?
Here, please educate yourself
The two party system must be fought tooth and nail.
An struggle for liberty is never a wasted effort in my book.
... Thanks for reading the first sentence of my post. I really appreciate your time and reading comprehension spent on it. I think you might find it more enjoyable if you read the second part of my post in which we agree. kthnxbye.
True. But shouldn't you still tell the truth and just put down what you studied instead of trying to get some kind of second-hand recognition. If they quiz you a little bit on what you studied and what you've done with that knowledge it will become painfully evident if you know what you are talking about or not.
Wow... She's going to be popular with the boys now... uh... waitaminute...
Come on. I expect any one with your sig to call it DoubleSpeak.
Woa... Unlike you I didn't jump to conclusions and asked for a clarification question on his position.
But maybe you should read my post from above before you make more guesses about how I think.
But, yes for the most part I do agree with you, although I think it's more fascism without a figurehead. But really we are just arguing shades of evil at that point.
No need to apologize, in this day and age you should be congratulated.
I agree with you basic assessment of Corporations in the fact that they are more or less headless entities. They are a collective which is treated as an individual. If I had my way there would be no such thing as publicly owned companies. But that's my simple summation of it, and I realize it wouldn't solve everything, but when you can hang your ire on a single man, and that single man knows that the ire of some 300 million people is directed at him for the decisions he makes, and the decide who to give the money to every second of every day, it tends to put moral men in charge of the companies. First and foremost I'm a firm believer in individualism, so the idea that I would sell parts of any company I make to people I don't know really really bugs me.
But you have my vote for the sleep thing...
When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?
Please don't read this as a troll I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the matter.
Essentially you and I can agree on a number of things although I would add Atlas Shrugged to that list, and I would say "People who do not think are taking over the world."
I'm curious as to how far apart our view points are while still arriving at a similar estimation of the problem. That will be the true test of how bad it is.
I'm an engineer for a reason. Thanks though.
You mean it's much easier to guilt yourself into doing the something if you buy an expensive gimick and have to justify the purchase?
Google maps is free. And you should always plan your runs before you go... not after.
As far as you know, you aren't a driver developer?
Do you get drunk in bars and make illegitimate drivers after you pass out with dusty old 386s?
True. But if you are talking about beliefs in the general sense, there are very few rational (by my terms, others may have their own...) philosophies or religions that don't have belief in an identifiable 'self' as such.
Maybe you were looking for the term faith?
So when do you get a partner is what I'm wondering? Or does that stretch the analogy to thin?
...Flamebait? Prove me wrong, fuckers. I dare you!
How's this trolling? A little bit of an bromide but... My brothers Diesel Jetta gets 45 to 40mpg as a commuter, it has tons more torque. And just to clarify, he doesn't milk it, he drives it like he stole it day in and day out. And no matter how much luggage he carries, he gets about the same mpg for the same driving(city/hwy that is).
Here have some fun with these:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/vws-prius-killi.html
http://www.transmitmedia.com/golfTDI/
And also: Who is considering the Carbon foot print to make these cars instead of using the ones we have until they are dust? Buying a new car is probably the most irresponsible thing to do. Buy an old, used car, keep it tuned. And it will cost you less to purchase.
I would actually hope the shorter commercials would advertise non-concrete things.Generally concrete objects deserve the time to explain what they are and why they are better.
MS would have done better to just toss up Bill G. and Seinfeld handing out laptops for 15 seconds to a group of inner city school kids with a Microsoft logo in the corner. Nothing else, that's it. Then when every one asks why so short, they could say "We were going to use 30 seconds but we had to pay for handing out laptops."
I don't agree with altruism in general (especially redistribution of wealth by the government), but even that would have made me stop and think.
Taken as a parody of modern life, it was indeed funny. But most people I knew saw it and expressed a desire for their lives to be as interesting. So maybe I don't despise the show... Just people...
Maybe they should have put more time in making the OS enjoyable rather than the questionably enjoyable commercial. The direct approach almost always works better when you have access to it. Unless they came to the realization that Vista is the pinnacle of Microsoft OS achievement and decided to take an indirect approach to boost what they can...
What no chair? Stay classy Slashdot...