Are you kidding me? Marx and Engels tried many times to start a violent revolution. They have plenty of blood on their hands. Ultimately they were unsuccessful in their own attempts but what Stalin and Lenin did was not a corruption of their work. It was the fulfillment. It is exactly what Marx wanted but was unable to do himself.
In history, who has proven to be the biggest monsters? Marx and Engels (the fathers of both socialism and communism) or George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
I can't remember all the details, and I don't care to look it up, but in the 1800s there was a major disaster in the southern US. I think it was a drought or something like that. People called on the president to sign a bill issuing welfare to those affected. He refused on the basis that it wasn't the governments job and private parties should rise to the occasion. They did, supplying almost 10 times as much as the bill would have granted. The point is that that wouldn't have happened if the government had stepped in. Voluntary donations are better all around. People feel better about giving them than taxes, they usually give more, and those receiving it are more grateful.
I wouldn't need to. Since your so generous and feel everyone deserves the best there is (which ultimately just reduces the meaning of "best), you would pay all my bills for me, right?
A) Military actually is in the US Consitution, unlike any mention of health care B) Deterance and prevention is the primary point of a standing army C) If there were no US military there would be a lot more wars going on than there already are.
We have the technology to save some of the sick. The resources ultimately come from the individuals themselves. If it didn't they would dry up very fast. Someone has to pay for everything right down to that syringe. I work in a hospital. I see the strain on the system as it is. I know how much things cost, and why they cost so much. Claiming that we are able so save everyone is stupid and foolhardy.
Officers understand that going hand to hand with ANY suspect is a bad idea and always last resort. The chances of someone getting hurt from hand to hand is much, much higher. Having done a lot of tactical training myself, I can tell that most of the people complaing about how dangerous tasers are are talking out of their ass and living in a utopian world of love and peace. As distances shrink, danger increases proportionately. Reaction times decrease and there is less room for error. As an example, take the Tueller distance. At what point would you consider an individual with a knife/club/screwdriver/ax/fist/bottle dangerous? It's only a melee weapon with a short range, right? No need to get anxious until they are within arms distance to use it, right? Wrong. An average person can run from a dead stop 25 feet before an average person can respond, approximately 1.5 seconds. That includes drawing their own weapon or moving to dodge the attack. If we are standing 15 feet apart and i have my hands at my side, I can literally have a knife drawn and sticking out of your throat before you so much as blink. Just a little food for thought. Things happen quickly, and distance is the only way to off set that. Tasers are the only non-lethal means officers have of controlling a situation from a distance, before it gets that close. Sure they are some officers abusing them, but until you go through the training yourself and realize that those officers are indeed violating the training, accusations that its rigged to make money for the company are empty suppositions.
Does a slashdotter fail to understand the concept of chance and statistics? There are people who get killed eating gummy bears too. A highly publicized incident of a killer gummy bear doesn't make them lethal.
The cartridges are multiple use, meaning if the taser is used once, twice, or fifty times on the same suspect there is no difference. Repeated tasering of the same person uses the same lead wires. In addition, the cost of the litigation against them is more than offsets the value of selling an extra cartridge.
This is stupid. Their rules of engagement that they train are very strict. How are they going to make more money when they are misused? That makes no sense. Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
I fail to really see the problem. Not everything can be free and mgive needs money to continue operating. If it takes the cell companies time to collect payment in the billing cycle, its going to take time for that money to get moved over. Why should the cell company or mgive front the costs? For mgive its likely they dont have the assets to do so if they wanted to. Would people rather have no corporations with the ability to processes stuff like this?
No one has a right to not be offended. If the principle of free speech means anything it means that offensive speech is also allowed and protected, or it's a hollow and hypocritical principle. Even so-called "hate speech" is still just "speech" that expresses a feeling of "hate". It should be allowed.
By that reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to be a pedophile, murderer, rapist, alcoholic, or any other sort of degenerate just because it is who you are deep inside. There is a difference between admitting attraction and acting on it, just as we expect the psychopath not to eat people even though he wants to. And no, I'm not equating homosexuality with canabalism, just pointing out that everyone is born with certain tendencies or urges, that those tendencies are encouraged or repressed depending on many environmental and personal variables, and that certain tendencies should always be fought against, even if it is what you are "deep inside." The "I can't help it" excuse is no more valid for homosexuality than for alcoholism. There are plenty of people for both issues who admit problems and consciously struggle against it.
You're discounting two important factors
1)the value of having new customers come in. Make the first experience positive and they might return, making that gc loss a long term gain.
2)the high number of gcs that never get redeemed.
No, we are a democratic republic. Social democracy is mumbo jumbo that doesn't mean anything. All governments are by definition social. While there is no mad rush to give back SS checks, there is plenty to stop giving them in the first place. It's the "me too" mentality that as long as its going on I might as well get my part, and how many have paid in more than they are getting out now. Personally I would gladly forgo all that SS promises me in the distant future if I didn't have to pay now. You're correct that both SS and Medicare/Medicaid are socialist programs and I look forward to when some politician finally has the guts to abolish them both.
It seems he has a beef against Mattel for some reason, but after 15 minutes skimming through all I could find was stuff about how they tried to silence him and his demands for an apology. I never found what exactly he has against them.
Sigh. It is on the left economically meaning centralized control over business and manufacturing. The government doesn't directly own all corporations, but they are control by it. In this case because it is an economic issue, then the policies (which are supported by the left) are indeed fascist; ie, pro-union. Now let us consider what countries in the world have practiced fascism and who they associated with. By far the two most prominent are Italy and Germany. There have been some other revolutionary types around the world that try to implement it, but none as successful. What were WWII era Italy and Germany like? Hint, they were very similar to Soviet Russia. The only difference was in name. Stalin and Hitler were cut from the same cloth and the only reason they didn't like each other is the fact that they both wanted world domination in their own name. Socialism and communism are virtually identical. The difference is in their approach, where socialism works through legislation, communism works by force. Fascism, whenever attempted, has led to social and economic conditions very similar to those under communism. Hence, fascism is nothing more than another flavor of communism.
Well said, especially for an AC. You just forgot to mention the part where it doesn't matter that he is guilty because he did it for "the greater good"
Slashdot Mirror
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
B)See C
C)Are you speaking Russian, German, or Chinese right now?
Are you kidding me? Marx and Engels tried many times to start a violent revolution. They have plenty of blood on their hands. Ultimately they were unsuccessful in their own attempts but what Stalin and Lenin did was not a corruption of their work. It was the fulfillment. It is exactly what Marx wanted but was unable to do himself.
In history, who has proven to be the biggest monsters? Marx and Engels (the fathers of both socialism and communism) or George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
I can't remember all the details, and I don't care to look it up, but in the 1800s there was a major disaster in the southern US. I think it was a drought or something like that. People called on the president to sign a bill issuing welfare to those affected. He refused on the basis that it wasn't the governments job and private parties should rise to the occasion. They did, supplying almost 10 times as much as the bill would have granted.
The point is that that wouldn't have happened if the government had stepped in. Voluntary donations are better all around. People feel better about giving them than taxes, they usually give more, and those receiving it are more grateful.
I wouldn't need to. Since your so generous and feel everyone deserves the best there is (which ultimately just reduces the meaning of "best), you would pay all my bills for me, right?
A) Military actually is in the US Consitution, unlike any mention of health care
B) Deterance and prevention is the primary point of a standing army
C) If there were no US military there would be a lot more wars going on than there already are.
We have the technology to save some of the sick. The resources ultimately come from the individuals themselves. If it didn't they would dry up very fast. Someone has to pay for everything right down to that syringe.
I work in a hospital. I see the strain on the system as it is. I know how much things cost, and why they cost so much. Claiming that we are able so save everyone is stupid and foolhardy.
Officers understand that going hand to hand with ANY suspect is a bad idea and always last resort. The chances of someone getting hurt from hand to hand is much, much higher. Having done a lot of tactical training myself, I can tell that most of the people complaing about how dangerous tasers are are talking out of their ass and living in a utopian world of love and peace.
As distances shrink, danger increases proportionately. Reaction times decrease and there is less room for error. As an example, take the Tueller distance. At what point would you consider an individual with a knife/club/screwdriver/ax/fist/bottle dangerous? It's only a melee weapon with a short range, right? No need to get anxious until they are within arms distance to use it, right?
Wrong. An average person can run from a dead stop 25 feet before an average person can respond, approximately 1.5 seconds. That includes drawing their own weapon or moving to dodge the attack. If we are standing 15 feet apart and i have my hands at my side, I can literally have a knife drawn and sticking out of your throat before you so much as blink. Just a little food for thought.
Things happen quickly, and distance is the only way to off set that. Tasers are the only non-lethal means officers have of controlling a situation from a distance, before it gets that close. Sure they are some officers abusing them, but until you go through the training yourself and realize that those officers are indeed violating the training, accusations that its rigged to make money for the company are empty suppositions.
Does a slashdotter fail to understand the concept of chance and statistics? There are people who get killed eating gummy bears too. A highly publicized incident of a killer gummy bear doesn't make them lethal.
The cartridges are multiple use, meaning if the taser is used once, twice, or fifty times on the same suspect there is no difference. Repeated tasering of the same person uses the same lead wires.
In addition, the cost of the litigation against them is more than offsets the value of selling an extra cartridge.
This is stupid. Their rules of engagement that they train are very strict. How are they going to make more money when they are misused? That makes no sense.
Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.
prion to virus, virus to bacterium, bacterium to laywer, lawyer to protozoa, protozoa to tapeworm, tapeworm to.....
I fail to really see the problem. Not everything can be free and mgive needs money to continue operating. If it takes the cell companies time to collect payment in the billing cycle, its going to take time for that money to get moved over. Why should the cell company or mgive front the costs? For mgive its likely they dont have the assets to do so if they wanted to. Would people rather have no corporations with the ability to processes stuff like this?
like doctors, policemen, morticians, gravediggers, plumbers and lawyers?
oh wait...
I'll make a FB page for it.
No one has a right to not be offended. If the principle of free speech means anything it means that offensive speech is also allowed and protected, or it's a hollow and hypocritical principle. Even so-called "hate speech" is still just "speech" that expresses a feeling of "hate". It should be allowed.
That is a rare viewpoint in the liberal ideology.
By that reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to be a pedophile, murderer, rapist, alcoholic, or any other sort of degenerate just because it is who you are deep inside. There is a difference between admitting attraction and acting on it, just as we expect the psychopath not to eat people even though he wants to.
And no, I'm not equating homosexuality with canabalism, just pointing out that everyone is born with certain tendencies or urges, that those tendencies are encouraged or repressed depending on many environmental and personal variables, and that certain tendencies should always be fought against, even if it is what you are "deep inside."
The "I can't help it" excuse is no more valid for homosexuality than for alcoholism. There are plenty of people for both issues who admit problems and consciously struggle against it.
You're discounting two important factors
1)the value of having new customers come in. Make the first experience positive and they might return, making that gc loss a long term gain.
2)the high number of gcs that never get redeemed.
That brings up rule #1 about deal hunting. It's only a good deal if you were already planning on buying it sooner or later.
I always thought eek was more of a mousey squeek.
No, we are a democratic republic. Social democracy is mumbo jumbo that doesn't mean anything. All governments are by definition social.
While there is no mad rush to give back SS checks, there is plenty to stop giving them in the first place. It's the "me too" mentality that as long as its going on I might as well get my part, and how many have paid in more than they are getting out now. Personally I would gladly forgo all that SS promises me in the distant future if I didn't have to pay now. You're correct that both SS and Medicare/Medicaid are socialist programs and I look forward to when some politician finally has the guts to abolish them both.
It seems he has a beef against Mattel for some reason, but after 15 minutes skimming through all I could find was stuff about how they tried to silence him and his demands for an apology. I never found what exactly he has against them.
but not with demos of them doing it.
Sigh. It is on the left economically meaning centralized control over business and manufacturing. The government doesn't directly own all corporations, but they are control by it. In this case because it is an economic issue, then the policies (which are supported by the left) are indeed fascist; ie, pro-union.
Now let us consider what countries in the world have practiced fascism and who they associated with. By far the two most prominent are Italy and Germany. There have been some other revolutionary types around the world that try to implement it, but none as successful. What were WWII era Italy and Germany like? Hint, they were very similar to Soviet Russia. The only difference was in name. Stalin and Hitler were cut from the same cloth and the only reason they didn't like each other is the fact that they both wanted world domination in their own name.
Socialism and communism are virtually identical. The difference is in their approach, where socialism works through legislation, communism works by force. Fascism, whenever attempted, has led to social and economic conditions very similar to those under communism. Hence, fascism is nothing more than another flavor of communism.
Well said, especially for an AC. You just forgot to mention the part where it doesn't matter that he is guilty because he did it for "the greater good"