I have a friend who bought an aftermarket stereo system that connects to the remote audio controls in his car. He does not even have the mechanical aptitude to build his own PC, yet he managed to replace the car stereo...even with the console set up he had to get (although he did borrow tools--and probably got assistance from--another friend who is fairly mechanically adept).
Except that it has been trivially easy for anyone with even minor mechanical aptitude (if you can build your own PC, you can do this) to replace the car stereo...even the one's with 8-track players. On the other hand, I have not heard of anyone replacing these in dash systems that work with obsolete cell-phone technology.
Your mistake is in thinking that she is saying that George Lucas is a great artist, when in fact she is saying that, while George Lucas is not much of an artist, all the rest are worse. (Either that or she would not know art if Michaleangelo showed up and painted a mural on her wall).
So, basically you are saying you will not buy a single product from Israel (since the killing won't stop until Israel is controlled by Muslims and if that happens they will change the name of the country).
Whether the Geneva convention applies to the situation is debatable since the disputed territories were never under the sovereignty of any existing nation. Having reviewed a couple of the arguments, those who claim that Israel is in violation of the Geneva conventions have failed to address that fact (that does not mean that Israel is not in violation, just that I have seen no one address the issue that Israel presents as its defense against the charge without seeing the argument as to why the Geneva Convention applies in that situation I am unable to judge the issue). The other things you mention are not treaties (although there may be treaties that they are a violation of). What treaties are they violations of? And is Israel a signer of those treaties?
So far, you have only mentioned one treaty that Israel is a signer of and it is a matter of dispute as to whether Israel has broken it.
It is not Israel that keeps Palestinian Arabs in a labor-camp like situation. It is the U.N. (and to some degree the Arab nations they reside in) that does that.
No it does not. The term scapegoat derives from the English translation of Leviticus. It is certainly possible that the Hebrew practice was derived from Ancient Babylonian practices or Ancient Egyptian practices. However, that does not change the derivation of the term "scapegoat". Having just looked into it, the closest thing the Ancient Egyptians practiced involved sacrificing a bull, not a goat. On the other hand there is some evidence of something similar being practiced in ancient Assyria/Babylon. I could only find limited information on it. Information which suggested that there is/was some controversy surrounding that interpretation, but the information available to me was too limited to determine if the controversy was ever resolved nor did that information provide any dating for the practice (the rest of the paper which would have contained the information was behind a paywall). Nevertheless, my initial point stands, our use of the term scapegoat derives from the reference in Leviticus. It is possible that the passage in Leviticus refers to a ritual that was derived from rituals of another culture of the period, but if Leviticus had not contained the reference, we would not use the phrase.
NO, starting next year they are going to ask you to buy a new OS version every time you get a new piece of hardware. "I'm sorry, that USB device is not supported by this version of Windows. Please connect to microsoft,com and download and install the new OS for a mere $$$."
The term scapegoat derives from the English translation of the Hebrew in the Leviticus passage. The concepts we now associate with the term include some derived from the practice you discussed as well as the Greek practice of casting out an undesirable (beggar, cripple or criminal).
No, scapegoat did not start with the Greeks. Scapegoat comes from the book of Leviticus where a goat was designated to be cast out into the desert as part of atonement for sins. The Greeks actually used a cripple, a beggar or a criminal for the practice you are thinking of, not a goat.
We do not have a "revenue problem". Historically, no matter what the tax rates, the federal government has collected between 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. Currently the federal government is spending just shy of 25% of GDP. That is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The fact is we have had a deficit since before I was born, not just since Bush.
Right because the company makes so much money off of the person who does not get to try the game for free and therefore not only does not buy that game, but does not buy any other games from the company.
There have been such laws in the U.S. for years. As a matter of fact in the U.S., something can only be on sale for a maximum number of days out of the month. Years ago when I was in high school I worked at Sears. They introduced a new product that retailed at $99.99. It had terrible sales. So, they raised the price to $159.99. Then they put it on sale for $99.99 the maximum number of days a month they were allowed. We were constantly selling through our inventory when it went on sale, even though we could not sell it for that price when that was the original price.
You complain about hidden inflation because the government creates money out of thin air, then you recommend that Obama shut down the government rather than agree to reduce government spending so that the government can stop creating money out of thin air to pay its bills.
What "forced" those countries into austerity? Oh yeah, that was the only condition under which other people were willing to lend them money. You know, people were only willing to lend those countries money on the condition that they change the way they spent money so that there was a chance that the people lending the money might get paid back someday.
It still amounts to the same thing. It means that businesses are unable to calculate what their tax burden at any given time will be, because the government has reserved the right to change the rules at any time AND apply those changes retroactively.
It's "everyone is supposed to pay a fair amount of taxes. We set up rules to calculate, as best as we could, the amount of fair taxes for everyone. You managed to set up things so that the taxes calculated by our rules were very much less than the fair amount of taxes. Now we fix this, and since you didn't pay a fair amount of taxes in the past, we fix it retroactively".
What that amounts to is the government saying, "You have money that we want, so we are going to take it. We will invent a reason that we can sell to the populace to make them think that we won't do the same thing to them."
Despite the rhetoric on both sides, there is no cut in federal spending coming any time soon. Even if Congress and the President do not come to an agreement (a not unlikely possibility) all that will happen is that spending will not increase by as much as projected. That is the situation at it stands is this. The law as passed last summer says that if Congress does not pass and the President sign (or Congress pass over the President's veto) some law changing things the amount that all parts of the Federal government will be allowed to spend next year will be 10% less than the amount that was projected to be spent in the last set of comprehensive "budget" documents passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. That is, they are not going to take how much Congress approved to be spent this year and reduce it by 10%. They are going to take the amount that Congress guesstimated they were going to spend next year (which includes a sizable increase from this year) and cut that by 10%.
Most people think that when they talk about cutting spending by 10% it means that if they spent $3 million this year on a program, next year they are going to spend $2.7 million. It doesn't. It means that they are going to spend $3.6 million rather than $4 million next year (numbers chosen for ease of calculation).
Have you been paying attention to what is happening in Europe over the last two years? Countries in Europe are one by one reaching the point where the cost of government services (including and mostly involving, that "social security safety net") are exceeding tax revenues to the point where no one wants to loan them money.
So, you are going to tax farms out of existence. Your tax will not effect the truly wealthy, few of their assets will be in the jurisdiction that implements such a tax.
Currently, I do not know of a government that taxes income more than once (well, OK, some people argue that some forms of taxation are double or triple taxation of income, but that is a matter of interpretation--not that I necessarily disagree with them, just that the theory is that it is only taxed once). I am curious what you intend to do for government revenue the second year?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend who bought an aftermarket stereo system that connects to the remote audio controls in his car. He does not even have the mechanical aptitude to build his own PC, yet he managed to replace the car stereo...even with the console set up he had to get (although he did borrow tools--and probably got assistance from--another friend who is fairly mechanically adept).
Except that it has been trivially easy for anyone with even minor mechanical aptitude (if you can build your own PC, you can do this) to replace the car stereo...even the one's with 8-track players. On the other hand, I have not heard of anyone replacing these in dash systems that work with obsolete cell-phone technology.
Your mistake is in thinking that she is saying that George Lucas is a great artist, when in fact she is saying that, while George Lucas is not much of an artist, all the rest are worse. (Either that or she would not know art if Michaleangelo showed up and painted a mural on her wall).
So, basically you are saying you will not buy a single product from Israel (since the killing won't stop until Israel is controlled by Muslims and if that happens they will change the name of the country).
I don't know of any treaties that Israel has signed.
Whether the Geneva convention applies to the situation is debatable since the disputed territories were never under the sovereignty of any existing nation. Having reviewed a couple of the arguments, those who claim that Israel is in violation of the Geneva conventions have failed to address that fact (that does not mean that Israel is not in violation, just that I have seen no one address the issue that Israel presents as its defense against the charge without seeing the argument as to why the Geneva Convention applies in that situation I am unable to judge the issue). The other things you mention are not treaties (although there may be treaties that they are a violation of). What treaties are they violations of? And is Israel a signer of those treaties?
So far, you have only mentioned one treaty that Israel is a signer of and it is a matter of dispute as to whether Israel has broken it.
It is not Israel that keeps Palestinian Arabs in a labor-camp like situation. It is the U.N. (and to some degree the Arab nations they reside in) that does that.
No it does not. The term scapegoat derives from the English translation of Leviticus. It is certainly possible that the Hebrew practice was derived from Ancient Babylonian practices or Ancient Egyptian practices. However, that does not change the derivation of the term "scapegoat". Having just looked into it, the closest thing the Ancient Egyptians practiced involved sacrificing a bull, not a goat. On the other hand there is some evidence of something similar being practiced in ancient Assyria/Babylon. I could only find limited information on it. Information which suggested that there is/was some controversy surrounding that interpretation, but the information available to me was too limited to determine if the controversy was ever resolved nor did that information provide any dating for the practice (the rest of the paper which would have contained the information was behind a paywall). Nevertheless, my initial point stands, our use of the term scapegoat derives from the reference in Leviticus. It is possible that the passage in Leviticus refers to a ritual that was derived from rituals of another culture of the period, but if Leviticus had not contained the reference, we would not use the phrase.
NO, starting next year they are going to ask you to buy a new OS version every time you get a new piece of hardware. "I'm sorry, that USB device is not supported by this version of Windows. Please connect to microsoft,com and download and install the new OS for a mere $$$."
The term scapegoat derives from the English translation of the Hebrew in the Leviticus passage. The concepts we now associate with the term include some derived from the practice you discussed as well as the Greek practice of casting out an undesirable (beggar, cripple or criminal).
What treaties that Israel has signed has it broken?
No, scapegoat did not start with the Greeks. Scapegoat comes from the book of Leviticus where a goat was designated to be cast out into the desert as part of atonement for sins. The Greeks actually used a cripple, a beggar or a criminal for the practice you are thinking of, not a goat.
I have never understood how people come up with the idea that the goal of the Republicans is to help Democrats hold onto their wealth.
When did the federal government pass mandatory auto insurance? I must have missed that.
We do not have a "revenue problem". Historically, no matter what the tax rates, the federal government has collected between 18-19% of GDP in tax revenue. Currently the federal government is spending just shy of 25% of GDP. That is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The fact is we have had a deficit since before I was born, not just since Bush.
Right because the company makes so much money off of the person who does not get to try the game for free and therefore not only does not buy that game, but does not buy any other games from the company.
There have been such laws in the U.S. for years. As a matter of fact in the U.S., something can only be on sale for a maximum number of days out of the month. Years ago when I was in high school I worked at Sears. They introduced a new product that retailed at $99.99. It had terrible sales. So, they raised the price to $159.99. Then they put it on sale for $99.99 the maximum number of days a month they were allowed. We were constantly selling through our inventory when it went on sale, even though we could not sell it for that price when that was the original price.
You complain about hidden inflation because the government creates money out of thin air, then you recommend that Obama shut down the government rather than agree to reduce government spending so that the government can stop creating money out of thin air to pay its bills.
What "forced" those countries into austerity? Oh yeah, that was the only condition under which other people were willing to lend them money. You know, people were only willing to lend those countries money on the condition that they change the way they spent money so that there was a chance that the people lending the money might get paid back someday.
Right, and when they are out of money, move on to the next guy (of course, sooner or later, you will be the "next guy").
It's "everyone is supposed to pay a fair amount of taxes. We set up rules to calculate, as best as we could, the amount of fair taxes for everyone. You managed to set up things so that the taxes calculated by our rules were very much less than the fair amount of taxes. Now we fix this, and since you didn't pay a fair amount of taxes in the past, we fix it retroactively".
What that amounts to is the government saying, "You have money that we want, so we are going to take it. We will invent a reason that we can sell to the populace to make them think that we won't do the same thing to them."
Despite the rhetoric on both sides, there is no cut in federal spending coming any time soon. Even if Congress and the President do not come to an agreement (a not unlikely possibility) all that will happen is that spending will not increase by as much as projected. That is the situation at it stands is this. The law as passed last summer says that if Congress does not pass and the President sign (or Congress pass over the President's veto) some law changing things the amount that all parts of the Federal government will be allowed to spend next year will be 10% less than the amount that was projected to be spent in the last set of comprehensive "budget" documents passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. That is, they are not going to take how much Congress approved to be spent this year and reduce it by 10%. They are going to take the amount that Congress guesstimated they were going to spend next year (which includes a sizable increase from this year) and cut that by 10%.
Most people think that when they talk about cutting spending by 10% it means that if they spent $3 million this year on a program, next year they are going to spend $2.7 million. It doesn't. It means that they are going to spend $3.6 million rather than $4 million next year (numbers chosen for ease of calculation).
Have you been paying attention to what is happening in Europe over the last two years? Countries in Europe are one by one reaching the point where the cost of government services (including and mostly involving, that "social security safety net") are exceeding tax revenues to the point where no one wants to loan them money.
So, you are going to tax farms out of existence. Your tax will not effect the truly wealthy, few of their assets will be in the jurisdiction that implements such a tax.
Currently, I do not know of a government that taxes income more than once (well, OK, some people argue that some forms of taxation are double or triple taxation of income, but that is a matter of interpretation--not that I necessarily disagree with them, just that the theory is that it is only taxed once). I am curious what you intend to do for government revenue the second year?