He said that he believed that his taxes should be higher. He then said that he believed that mine should be as well. The problem with your example of the football coach is that the football coach does not have the option of getting the scorer only count his teams field goals as two points, while everyone who believes that their own taxes should be higher does have the option of paying more in taxes, either by not taking all of the deductions they are eligible for or by writing a check to the government for the additional amount that they think they should be paying. So your football example does not apply here.
What this discussion generally comes down to is that some people think they are being generous by giving those in need someone else's money. That is not generosity, that is theft (and don't compare it to Robin Hood, Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors and other government officials in order to give to the poor).
Well, Tsarist Russia was a haven of freedom, equality, and harmony compared with the Soviet Union and the Communist government in China did not replace Imperial China. The Communist government in China replaced the government that evolved into the current government of Taiwan, which would you rather have governing you, the successors to Mao, or the successors the Chiang Kai-Shek? Which government is over the country with the greater freedom, equality, and harmony?
Please give me examples of "left-wing" governments, by your definition, that you would like to see emulated elsewhere. One of the things I often run into in these discussions is people who support "left-wing" ideals comparing their ideal government with actual governments and then saying, "See, my ideals for government are better than yours."
If you believe that your taxes should be higher, but do not pay that higher rate, you are a hypocrite. More over, I believe that you are a liar (in your case, kilfarsnar, I accept your claim to paying more than required by law and do not consider this to apply to you), who expects that they will be able to get special exemptions written into the law so that while my taxes go up, yours remain the same or go down.
Those who, as kilfarsnar, pay more taxes than they are required by law are consistent and, while I disagree with their policy prescription (increased taxes), I respect them.
They did not make an argument. They made a statement of belief. They said , "I believe that my taxes ought to be higher..." If such was is the case, they have the option of paying more in taxes (which option they may be taking advantage of). If they are not taking advantage of that option, they are a hypocrite.
If you think that YOUR taxes should be higher and you take every deduction that you can, thus minimizing how much tax you pay, you are a hypocrite. Because that means that you do not really think your taxes should be higher (if you did, you would pay more). If you truly believed that your taxes should be higher, you would pay more while working to get the tax rate changed. If you are paying the least you can, while claiming that you think your taxes should be higher, I am going to conclude that you want MY taxes increased while figuring that you will be able to sneak some provision into the code to keep yours from going up.
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)? If such is not the case, you are a hypocrite and what you really believe is that MY taxes should be higher, even though you are willing to pay more as long as I am paying more.
As to your point on why abortion is legal, it does not seem that making it legal has helped the problem of people dying from it (google Dr Gosnell if you do not know what I am talking about).
It is certainly a question of how you define left and right wing. In the U.S., we have come to define left-wing as those whose political belief is that the solution to most problems is increased government power and responsibility and right-wing as those whose political belief is that the solution to most problems is greater individual responsibility and freedom. I understand that in Europe they define those terms differently, since almost everyone there accepts the idea that the solution to problems is greater government power and the only question remaining is how that power is exercised.
I missed one thing you said that is definitively not true. Patents only last for a limited length of time, which means that these farmers will only be limited from going into the seed selling business until the patents expire, at the latest. I do not know how the licensing will be given to the farmers, so it is possible that they will not face that restriction (although improbable).
Well, he's not shutting it down, but what do you think it means when they say he is going to "buy Dell"? It means that he is going to give money to the other shareholders in exchange for their share in Dell.
There is a key difference between the financial sector and oil companies. The financial sector is contains large numbers of Democratic Party supporters and politicians (for example, Jon Corzine). The oil companies have fewer politicians and big time political supporters (at least as a percentage of people employed by the industry).
I will not argue the point, but I am pretty sure that the various forms of the EPSPS enzyme are less well understood than beta-carotene. That does not mean that the scientific knowledge of them is insufficient to conclude that they are safe, merely that there is space in what is unknown about them for the possibility (although that possibility is rather slim) that there are unknown processes related to them that may have negative health effects.
I, personally, am not concerned about the health effects of glyphosate resistant crops, but I understand those who are. On the other hand, I do not understand those who are concerned about the health effects of rice which contains beta-carotene. Of course, the former are made more concerned by those who lump corn that is resistant to glyphosate with corn which contains pesticides (primarily neonicotinoids, if I understand what I have read correctly) with rice that contains beta-carotene. And that is complicated by the fact that they always use the term "pesticides" when referring to the crops that contain them so as to make people think of the insecticides that you can buy at the store that warn you not to breathe or consume them.
If it is a Monsanto talking point, how come I always hear it in the mouth of those calling for labeling? I have yet to hear someone who favors labeling of GMO foods who does not say that they will not eat any GMO foods if they have the ability to know that it is GMO. Just look at this discussion, there are numerous people who are comparing Golden Rice to corn that contains pesticides and to corn that is herbicide resistant.
Monsanto does not have any patents on Golden Rice. They do, however, have patents on some of the techniques used to develop Golden Rice. Monsanto has now reached an agreement with the organizations holding the patents directly on Golden Rice to allow those organizations to distribute Golden Rice for free to subsistence farmers. This agreement was brokered through a deal which Monsanto reached with the company which has the rights to sell Golden Rice in developed countries (such as the U.S., France, and Germany).
So, even though my statement was slightly incorrect, no one needs to go to Monsanto to get more seeds, EVER.
Or, you can put Vitamin A in cheap, patented rice, which is what this story is about. Perhaps you should educate yourself. The non-profit organization that holds the patent for Golden Rice has a track record of developing solutions for third world malnutrition. They have been around since the 1960s and are well respected for the work they have already done to reduce malnutrition around the world. The GMO rice being discussed is available for the same price point as the rice which its target market (poor, malnourished farmers in the Philippines and other Asian countries) currently pay for the rice they grow.
How is Golden Rice "all about making money" when the patent is owned by a non-profit, which has licensed the product for free use by farmers making less than $10,000 a year (which is the market they developed this rice for)?
Maybe because Golden Rice has nothing to do with Monsanto? The patents on Golden Rice are owned by a non-profit organization that has a record of helping people in third world countries deal with malnutrition going back to the 1960s. The license for Golden Rice says that farmers who make less than $10,000 a year (the target market for this crop) don't have to pay anything for the seeds and are allowed to collect and reuse the seeds.
You are a perfect example of most people who oppose GMO crops, "Oooh, it is a GMO crop. It must have been developed by an evil corporation (Monsanto) in order to control the world and poison us."
The thing is that the people calling for GMO labeling want food made using this Golden Rice labeled in the same way that food made from Monsanto Round Up resistant corn is labeled. That makes the label NOT useful, because it lumps food made with crops containing well understood properties (beta-carotene) with food made with crops containing less well understood properties (the component that makes the crop resistant to Round Up).
Good luck. My recommendation to cigarette smokers who wish to quit is to first switch to a tobacco product that does not have a fixed amount of nicotine in each unit (natural wrapper cigars, pipes, or, as one cigarette smoker I know is doing, hand rolled cigarettes using pipe tobacco). There are two problems that most cigarette smokers have with quitting smoking. The first is the oral fixation on the process of smoking (something that is, in and of itself, not that very difficult to overcome, but it is the reason why chewing tobacco and snuff don't work for most smokers trying to quit). The second and more difficult part is the nicotine addiction. What makes the cigarette nicotine addiction so much harder to break than other addictions is that every cigarette of a particular brand has exactly the same amount of nicotine as every other cigarette of that brand.
Did you miss the part where the OP said "whether you're black or white"? You know where he was basically saying that when someone from the community asks a 17 year old what he is doing in the community, that 17 year old should be polite and deferential, not matter what race either of the people in the conversation are.
However, it does not explain how Zimmerman ended up on the ground getting his head beat against the pavement, a situation to which we have a third party witness (who did not see a gun, which your scenario would already be in Zimmerman's hand...I am not sure how Zimmerman could have gotten the number of wounds to the back of his head if his gun was already in his hand).
What does the legal right to stand your ground have to do with this case? George Zimmerman did not appeal to the Stand Your Ground law in his defense because his defense was based on the idea that he was on the ground having his head bashed into the pavement by a young man who had spent the last year or so developing Mixed Martial Arts techniques.
Slashdot Mirror
He said that he believed that his taxes should be higher. He then said that he believed that mine should be as well. The problem with your example of the football coach is that the football coach does not have the option of getting the scorer only count his teams field goals as two points, while everyone who believes that their own taxes should be higher does have the option of paying more in taxes, either by not taking all of the deductions they are eligible for or by writing a check to the government for the additional amount that they think they should be paying. So your football example does not apply here.
What this discussion generally comes down to is that some people think they are being generous by giving those in need someone else's money. That is not generosity, that is theft (and don't compare it to Robin Hood, Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors and other government officials in order to give to the poor).
Well, Tsarist Russia was a haven of freedom, equality, and harmony compared with the Soviet Union and the Communist government in China did not replace Imperial China. The Communist government in China replaced the government that evolved into the current government of Taiwan, which would you rather have governing you, the successors to Mao, or the successors the Chiang Kai-Shek? Which government is over the country with the greater freedom, equality, and harmony?
Please give me examples of "left-wing" governments, by your definition, that you would like to see emulated elsewhere. One of the things I often run into in these discussions is people who support "left-wing" ideals comparing their ideal government with actual governments and then saying, "See, my ideals for government are better than yours."
Soviet Russia, China,
If you believe that your taxes should be higher, but do not pay that higher rate, you are a hypocrite. More over, I believe that you are a liar (in your case, kilfarsnar, I accept your claim to paying more than required by law and do not consider this to apply to you), who expects that they will be able to get special exemptions written into the law so that while my taxes go up, yours remain the same or go down.
Those who, as kilfarsnar, pay more taxes than they are required by law are consistent and, while I disagree with their policy prescription (increased taxes), I respect them.
They did not make an argument. They made a statement of belief. They said , "I believe that my taxes ought to be higher..." If such was is the case, they have the option of paying more in taxes (which option they may be taking advantage of). If they are not taking advantage of that option, they are a hypocrite.
If your definition is correct, why are the results of every "left wing" government less liberty, greater inequality and more division?
If you think that YOUR taxes should be higher and you take every deduction that you can, thus minimizing how much tax you pay, you are a hypocrite. Because that means that you do not really think your taxes should be higher (if you did, you would pay more). If you truly believed that your taxes should be higher, you would pay more while working to get the tax rate changed. If you are paying the least you can, while claiming that you think your taxes should be higher, I am going to conclude that you want MY taxes increased while figuring that you will be able to sneak some provision into the code to keep yours from going up.
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)? If such is not the case, you are a hypocrite and what you really believe is that MY taxes should be higher, even though you are willing to pay more as long as I am paying more.
As to your point on why abortion is legal, it does not seem that making it legal has helped the problem of people dying from it (google Dr Gosnell if you do not know what I am talking about).
It is certainly a question of how you define left and right wing. In the U.S., we have come to define left-wing as those whose political belief is that the solution to most problems is increased government power and responsibility and right-wing as those whose political belief is that the solution to most problems is greater individual responsibility and freedom. I understand that in Europe they define those terms differently, since almost everyone there accepts the idea that the solution to problems is greater government power and the only question remaining is how that power is exercised.
I missed one thing you said that is definitively not true. Patents only last for a limited length of time, which means that these farmers will only be limited from going into the seed selling business until the patents expire, at the latest. I do not know how the licensing will be given to the farmers, so it is possible that they will not face that restriction (although improbable).
Well, he's not shutting it down, but what do you think it means when they say he is going to "buy Dell"? It means that he is going to give money to the other shareholders in exchange for their share in Dell.
There is a key difference between the financial sector and oil companies. The financial sector is contains large numbers of Democratic Party supporters and politicians (for example, Jon Corzine). The oil companies have fewer politicians and big time political supporters (at least as a percentage of people employed by the industry).
I will not argue the point, but I am pretty sure that the various forms of the EPSPS enzyme are less well understood than beta-carotene. That does not mean that the scientific knowledge of them is insufficient to conclude that they are safe, merely that there is space in what is unknown about them for the possibility (although that possibility is rather slim) that there are unknown processes related to them that may have negative health effects.
I, personally, am not concerned about the health effects of glyphosate resistant crops, but I understand those who are. On the other hand, I do not understand those who are concerned about the health effects of rice which contains beta-carotene. Of course, the former are made more concerned by those who lump corn that is resistant to glyphosate with corn which contains pesticides (primarily neonicotinoids, if I understand what I have read correctly) with rice that contains beta-carotene. And that is complicated by the fact that they always use the term "pesticides" when referring to the crops that contain them so as to make people think of the insecticides that you can buy at the store that warn you not to breathe or consume them.
If it is a Monsanto talking point, how come I always hear it in the mouth of those calling for labeling? I have yet to hear someone who favors labeling of GMO foods who does not say that they will not eat any GMO foods if they have the ability to know that it is GMO. Just look at this discussion, there are numerous people who are comparing Golden Rice to corn that contains pesticides and to corn that is herbicide resistant.
Monsanto does not have any patents on Golden Rice. They do, however, have patents on some of the techniques used to develop Golden Rice. Monsanto has now reached an agreement with the organizations holding the patents directly on Golden Rice to allow those organizations to distribute Golden Rice for free to subsistence farmers. This agreement was brokered through a deal which Monsanto reached with the company which has the rights to sell Golden Rice in developed countries (such as the U.S., France, and Germany).
So, even though my statement was slightly incorrect, no one needs to go to Monsanto to get more seeds, EVER.
Or, you can put Vitamin A in cheap, patented rice, which is what this story is about. Perhaps you should educate yourself. The non-profit organization that holds the patent for Golden Rice has a track record of developing solutions for third world malnutrition. They have been around since the 1960s and are well respected for the work they have already done to reduce malnutrition around the world. The GMO rice being discussed is available for the same price point as the rice which its target market (poor, malnourished farmers in the Philippines and other Asian countries) currently pay for the rice they grow.
How is Golden Rice "all about making money" when the patent is owned by a non-profit, which has licensed the product for free use by farmers making less than $10,000 a year (which is the market they developed this rice for)?
Maybe because Golden Rice has nothing to do with Monsanto? The patents on Golden Rice are owned by a non-profit organization that has a record of helping people in third world countries deal with malnutrition going back to the 1960s. The license for Golden Rice says that farmers who make less than $10,000 a year (the target market for this crop) don't have to pay anything for the seeds and are allowed to collect and reuse the seeds.
You are a perfect example of most people who oppose GMO crops, "Oooh, it is a GMO crop. It must have been developed by an evil corporation (Monsanto) in order to control the world and poison us."
The thing is that the people calling for GMO labeling want food made using this Golden Rice labeled in the same way that food made from Monsanto Round Up resistant corn is labeled. That makes the label NOT useful, because it lumps food made with crops containing well understood properties (beta-carotene) with food made with crops containing less well understood properties (the component that makes the crop resistant to Round Up).
Good luck. My recommendation to cigarette smokers who wish to quit is to first switch to a tobacco product that does not have a fixed amount of nicotine in each unit (natural wrapper cigars, pipes, or, as one cigarette smoker I know is doing, hand rolled cigarettes using pipe tobacco). There are two problems that most cigarette smokers have with quitting smoking. The first is the oral fixation on the process of smoking (something that is, in and of itself, not that very difficult to overcome, but it is the reason why chewing tobacco and snuff don't work for most smokers trying to quit). The second and more difficult part is the nicotine addiction. What makes the cigarette nicotine addiction so much harder to break than other addictions is that every cigarette of a particular brand has exactly the same amount of nicotine as every other cigarette of that brand.
Did you miss the part where the OP said "whether you're black or white"? You know where he was basically saying that when someone from the community asks a 17 year old what he is doing in the community, that 17 year old should be polite and deferential, not matter what race either of the people in the conversation are.
No, according to Zimmerman's story, Martin tried to knock Zimmerman unconscious and then tried to take the gun away. A significant difference.
However, it does not explain how Zimmerman ended up on the ground getting his head beat against the pavement, a situation to which we have a third party witness (who did not see a gun, which your scenario would already be in Zimmerman's hand...I am not sure how Zimmerman could have gotten the number of wounds to the back of his head if his gun was already in his hand).
What does the legal right to stand your ground have to do with this case? George Zimmerman did not appeal to the Stand Your Ground law in his defense because his defense was based on the idea that he was on the ground having his head bashed into the pavement by a young man who had spent the last year or so developing Mixed Martial Arts techniques.