Unfortunately, those ideas had to be included to appease Democrats from more conservative districts.
This idea that things were included to "appease districts" doesnt make sense since "we have to pass it in order to find out whats in it."
The people did not know what was in it when it was passed. Not only was no attempt made to "appease districts", there was a clear plan to intentionally keep people uninformed about it.
Clearly the Democrats were trying to appease their campaign donors, not their districts. Yes, thats the insurance companies.
The stock markets that effect my retirement and my employment? Not so much.
You want the benefits without the risks.. we get it.. you think there is a free lunch, built on the efforts of others, and that you are entitled to it.
A single Republican in both house and senate, combined, voted the the bill.
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it.
The Democrats wrote it.
The Democrats pushed for it.
The Democrats voted for it.
The Democrats single-handedly passed it.
Yet you are now already calling it a Republican bill, even before its been fully implemented. Seems to me that Democrats never want to take responsibility for the shit they do.
Before you go on some diatribe about the bill being similar to the one passed in Mitt Romney's State of Massachusetts, that State is damn near as Democrat as it gets. You dont get to escape responsibility by pointing out that a State notoriously run by Democrats implemented it first. The Democrats own the health care bill lock, stock, and barrel. Its all yours.
Admit that you guys fucked up really badly, or be proud of it. Dont try to blame others for the shit you did.
You got what you asked for. You rammed the healthcare bill through without any republicans needed to support it (only 1 republican in both house and senate, combined, voted for the bill.. and the vote wasnt needed) so this is exactly what you wanted.
Dont like what you wanted? Maybe you should have read the bill before passing it.
...which isnt any different than Joe going to Bob and trading shares of a company without either a brokerage or the exchange involved.
The confused seem to think that its wrong if a brokerage is a middle-man in the trade, but somehow right if the exchange is the middle-man in the trade or if nobody is a middle man in the trade.
Its quite clear that they are simply afraid of what they dont understand, but instead of taking the (quite minimal) time to learn about the subject, they spread nonsensical FUD.
If the quote is eitehr higher or lower than the visible market rate, either the buyer is being underpaid, or the seller is overpaying, neither situation is "better".
So much evidence of a complete lack of knowledge of the market in a single sentence.
Unless you have anything to back up any of your statement, which for the uninformed, may otherwise look believable, or even plausible?
His statements are backed up by the observations of the new upper middle class slashdot that you didnt grow to be a part of. You see, when you earn a decent living it is in your best interest to learn the mechanics of stock trading, which most of the successful on slashdot have done.
Brokerage houses arent magic undecipherable black boxes. Not only can you actually learn the mechanics of how they work, its actually easy to do so. Try the public library, or this new fangled internet thing. I've known that brokerage houses handle trades in-house before going to the exchange for almost 3 decades, because I decided to learn something about trading stocks before getting involved. I learned it from books freely available in the public library, books produced specifically as primers for the average person that wanted to know more before getting involved.
I know its a radical idea, but learning about things is often quite easy.
More accurately, supply meets demand at every point on the graph. But since price still effects demand in a non-linear way, an infinitely small price does not mean an infinitely great demand. Demand is capped in a way irrespective of price.
Hm, so all ebooks are sold for free then? Because the supply is basically infinite (up to the bandwidth of the internet). Or maybe you're just spouting nonsense.
The flaw in this logic is that there are an infinite number of people buying them. The supply in this case is effectively capped at the number of people that exist, but more precisely the supply meets demand. The logical conclusion to that circumstance is not 'free books.'
It's funny how you Americans seem have no legal distinction between ownership and possession and derive most of your rights from what you can write down in a contract. In civilized countries you can't sign away a fundamental right and you certainly don't lose ownership of something just because it's in someone else's hands.
Your 'civilized country' example is exactly how America works. We just have different definitions for what constitutes 'property' and currently the meta-data about someone is not considered that persons property.
But, when you can't address the weapon used in 2/3 of all homocides and a similar proportion of suicides without RWNJ throwing tantrums, it makes it really challenging to do anything about it.
As others have observed, you just pulled out a shit table of data that doesnt actually hold any relevance to your argument, yet you sit there trumpeting it like it does making you just another dishonest fuck.
But beyond being a dishonest fuck, you then say that shit I just quoted. If the liberals were interested in ending gun homicides they wouldnt have picked "assault weapons" as the thing they are trying to ban. Instead they would have picked hand guns, which are responsible for nearly all gun-related homicides. What any reasonable observer can take away from a combination of what the facts are and what the actions of the left are, its that the left doesnt give a flying fuck about homicides but instead wants to weaken the peoples ability to defend themselves from the government as much as possible. That is, after all, the only rational reason to select "assault weapons" as the evil device that should be verboten.
Glad to hear that you think that 30 people out of 14 million dead over the course of 2 days isnt an extraordinarily low death rate. Its like they stopped aging, stopped having heart problems, stopped having car accidents, and their cancers went into remission.
Here is an idea, instead of morning the 30 people that died, rejoin that hundreds that should of died amazingly did not.
Is the fact that fewer people died than actually should have through normal day to day life confusing you? "oh my god.. 30 people died!" -- guess what, 30 people died since I started typing this.
I dunno. If someone staged a coup in the US, I'd be 'encouraging people to be violent' against it as well.
What if 50 million people in the US took to the streets in protest of the government?
That is essentially what just happened in Egypt. 17% of the people took to the streets! The largest protest in the history of the world at 14 million people.
Its gotta be extremely bad to get 17% of the people actively protesting, so when you say 'staged a coup' I honestly wonder exactly how ignorant you are of what just happened in Egypt. Only read and watch American news?
There are 4 main factions in Egypt, and certainly not all of them are happy with the military... clearly the muslim brotherhood is no longer happy with them. I imagine the minor groups like the Christians are extremely happy now.
I work with a man from Egypt, a Christian with family over there. I asked him what he thought about all this and his eyes lit up, "my family is finally free."
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, those ideas had to be included to appease Democrats from more conservative districts.
This idea that things were included to "appease districts" doesnt make sense since "we have to pass it in order to find out whats in it."
The people did not know what was in it when it was passed. Not only was no attempt made to "appease districts", there was a clear plan to intentionally keep people uninformed about it.
Clearly the Democrats were trying to appease their campaign donors, not their districts. Yes, thats the insurance companies.
The stock markets that effect my retirement and my employment? Not so much.
You want the benefits without the risks.. we get it.. you think there is a free lunch, built on the efforts of others, and that you are entitled to it.
You aren't. You are a thief.
A single Republican in both house and senate, combined, voted the the bill.
Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it.
The Democrats wrote it.
The Democrats pushed for it.
The Democrats voted for it.
The Democrats single-handedly passed it.
Yet you are now already calling it a Republican bill, even before its been fully implemented. Seems to me that Democrats never want to take responsibility for the shit they do.
Before you go on some diatribe about the bill being similar to the one passed in Mitt Romney's State of Massachusetts, that State is damn near as Democrat as it gets. You dont get to escape responsibility by pointing out that a State notoriously run by Democrats implemented it first. The Democrats own the health care bill lock, stock, and barrel. Its all yours.
Admit that you guys fucked up really badly, or be proud of it. Dont try to blame others for the shit you did.
You got what you asked for. You rammed the healthcare bill through without any republicans needed to support it (only 1 republican in both house and senate, combined, voted for the bill.. and the vote wasnt needed) so this is exactly what you wanted.
Dont like what you wanted? Maybe you should have read the bill before passing it.
In other words, the great defenders of the Free Market don't want the markets to function if it'll cost them.
no, in other words they want a free market where A can sell to B without C sticking his nose into it.
That thing you call an exchange is a market, but its not the only market.
Is it your intent to claim that when two people trade amongst themselves that that is not a free market? Really?
...which isnt any different than Joe going to Bob and trading shares of a company without either a brokerage or the exchange involved.
The confused seem to think that its wrong if a brokerage is a middle-man in the trade, but somehow right if the exchange is the middle-man in the trade or if nobody is a middle man in the trade.
Its quite clear that they are simply afraid of what they dont understand, but instead of taking the (quite minimal) time to learn about the subject, they spread nonsensical FUD.
If the quote is eitehr higher or lower than the visible market rate, either the buyer is being underpaid, or the seller is overpaying, neither situation is "better".
So much evidence of a complete lack of knowledge of the market in a single sentence.
Unless you have anything to back up any of your statement, which for the uninformed, may otherwise look believable, or even plausible?
His statements are backed up by the observations of the new upper middle class slashdot that you didnt grow to be a part of. You see, when you earn a decent living it is in your best interest to learn the mechanics of stock trading, which most of the successful on slashdot have done.
Brokerage houses arent magic undecipherable black boxes. Not only can you actually learn the mechanics of how they work, its actually easy to do so. Try the public library, or this new fangled internet thing. I've known that brokerage houses handle trades in-house before going to the exchange for almost 3 decades, because I decided to learn something about trading stocks before getting involved. I learned it from books freely available in the public library, books produced specifically as primers for the average person that wanted to know more before getting involved.
I know its a radical idea, but learning about things is often quite easy.
Hey, you should tell the scientists they are doing it all wrong, I'm sure they'd listen to you.
The ones in cancer research are...
More accurately, supply meets demand at every point on the graph. But since price still effects demand in a non-linear way, an infinitely small price does not mean an infinitely great demand. Demand is capped in a way irrespective of price.
Hm, so all ebooks are sold for free then? Because the supply is basically infinite (up to the bandwidth of the internet). Or maybe you're just spouting nonsense.
The flaw in this logic is that there are an infinite number of people buying them. The supply in this case is effectively capped at the number of people that exist, but more precisely the supply meets demand. The logical conclusion to that circumstance is not 'free books.'
It's funny how you Americans seem have no legal distinction between ownership and possession and derive most of your rights from what you can write down in a contract. In civilized countries you can't sign away a fundamental right and you certainly don't lose ownership of something just because it's in someone else's hands.
Your 'civilized country' example is exactly how America works. We just have different definitions for what constitutes 'property' and currently the meta-data about someone is not considered that persons property.
with the looping variable properly renamed from x_n to i.
'x_n' is not an index, proving that you still havent comprehended the code....
The variable 'x_n' is a member of the list, not an index into the list. While 'x_n' might be a bad name, 'i' is a horrible name.
But, when you can't address the weapon used in 2/3 of all homocides and a similar proportion of suicides without RWNJ throwing tantrums, it makes it really challenging to do anything about it.
As others have observed, you just pulled out a shit table of data that doesnt actually hold any relevance to your argument, yet you sit there trumpeting it like it does making you just another dishonest fuck.
But beyond being a dishonest fuck, you then say that shit I just quoted. If the liberals were interested in ending gun homicides they wouldnt have picked "assault weapons" as the thing they are trying to ban. Instead they would have picked hand guns, which are responsible for nearly all gun-related homicides. What any reasonable observer can take away from a combination of what the facts are and what the actions of the left are, its that the left doesnt give a flying fuck about homicides but instead wants to weaken the peoples ability to defend themselves from the government as much as possible. That is, after all, the only rational reason to select "assault weapons" as the evil device that should be verboten.
Because this is a very serious thing indeed. Somebody breaking into your house? 911
The 1911 isnt a very good home defense weapon. Shotguns are much better. The 1911 is for when you are out and about.
While Detroit hasnt had a Republican administration since January 1962, its still hard to conclusively blame the problems on the left.
We'll get a larger sample size soon enough.
The United States has shot down one of these before. While not exactly a "jumbo" jet, these things hold several hundred people.
It was an Iranian jet.. how quickly we forget.
My biggest concern here is that the complexity may be the downfall.
I think the main issue is that bringing things down over anything but ocean can have very negative consequences when a failure occurs.
Glad to hear that you think that 30 people out of 14 million dead over the course of 2 days isnt an extraordinarily low death rate. Its like they stopped aging, stopped having heart problems, stopped having car accidents, and their cancers went into remission.
Here is an idea, instead of morning the 30 people that died, rejoin that hundreds that should of died amazingly did not.
Is the fact that fewer people died than actually should have through normal day to day life confusing you? "oh my god.. 30 people died!" -- guess what, 30 people died since I started typing this.
I dunno. If someone staged a coup in the US, I'd be 'encouraging people to be violent' against it as well.
What if 50 million people in the US took to the streets in protest of the government?
That is essentially what just happened in Egypt. 17% of the people took to the streets! The largest protest in the history of the world at 14 million people.
Its gotta be extremely bad to get 17% of the people actively protesting, so when you say 'staged a coup' I honestly wonder exactly how ignorant you are of what just happened in Egypt. Only read and watch American news?
14 million people protesting, and only 30 died?
its a fucking miracle that only 0.000214% died, and you are acting like 30 is a big number.
Do you even listen to yourself?
There are 4 main factions in Egypt, and certainly not all of them are happy with the military... clearly the muslim brotherhood is no longer happy with them. I imagine the minor groups like the Christians are extremely happy now.
I work with a man from Egypt, a Christian with family over there. I asked him what he thought about all this and his eyes lit up, "my family is finally free."
Then, they (the military) appoint some other guy to be president.
That 'some other guy' was the head of the Egyptian Constitutional Court, and a deputy chief justice for over 2 decades, not some arbitrary pick.
(Will get next DNC nomination)
Wanna bet on that? They had their chance to nominate her but went with Obama instead, and since then here reputation has fallen like a rock.
If both the eater and the eaten consent, then why not?