Yeah, one would be to reduce the amount of loans the government allows students to take out. Second, make loans able to be nullified in bankruptcy court, that would also help lower the cost of education and get rid of shysty schools.
I'm guessing that what kenh meant was: "Why didn't you fucking stop hiring Indians?". Not, "why didn't you improve your interviewing process to weed out the bad seeds?" Seriously, you didn't come to the decision not to hire Indians after 4 bad ones? 6 more? It took you "four dozen Indians"? You sound really dense. Or, the allure of cheap labor was strong enough to curtail the learning curve for you. Probably that. Not so much that you were greedy, more that you saw it as the only way to move forward on a very small budget. I can definitely understand the temptation and ultimate decision. But for gawd's sake!, "four dozen!!!"?
Boy were you naive! Good thing now you know economics is a religion based on nothing more than applying numbers to baseless/unfounded/unproven hypotheses.
Coal should stay in the ground where it does the least harm.
And the least good. We can't make rational decisions by only considering exclusively the cost xor benefits of a choice.
Really? We can't make rational decisions by considering cost vs benefits of a choice? That is absolutely the best way to make rational decisions so long as the usual bs move of externalizing environmental, societal, and future impacts isn't how we carry them out. As long as all costs are considered, then cost vs benefits is the only way to make a choice. What would you propose we use a basis for decision making? Coin flip? Pray to the invisible hand of the market? Some other bullshit god?
So, progress. And your friends and their businesses can't make competitive offers? Their problem, like I said: Capitalism!
Maybe we'll end up in a situation where only mom and pop shops which get free labor from their kids and family that can help can be viable. That wouldn't be so bad, less of an accumulation of wealth by the few exploiting the many.
But just earlier you said I was an excellent parent, you are so fickle, very hard to please. Do you identify as a woman?
As I said, if they look like they mind or I feel they were being bothered, I interceded by removing my kids. So yeah. I also have very cute kids, not like those ugly and obese blond WASPs that are so annoying and entitled.
Believing in the innate goodness of people makes me a terrible parent? I am definitely sure that you are a republican now. First you don't believe in science, per your poo-pooing the infant and ledges study. Secondly your several expressions of how scary and dark the world is. A study was done and right-wing (republicans and tea-baggers) all are a lot more fearful and believe that people are inherently bad. A scientific study so you probably will claim it's part of some leftist conspiracy because, you know, it isn't in the bible or some such shit.
And here I thought we were going to be friends...:-(
I suppose telling my kids that all people are bad and only trust the pastor and the police would make me a good parent in your eyes. The police are nothing but jack-booted thugs hiding their murderous and racist intents behind a badge. And pastors are just that, fleecing their sheep.
But just earlier you said I was an excellent parent, you are so fickle, very hard to please. Do you identify as a woman?
As I said, if they look like they mind or I feel they were being bothered, I interceded by removing my kids. So yeah. I also have very cute kids, not like those ugly and obese blond WASPs that are so annoying and entitled.
Believing in the innate goodness of people makes me a terrible parent? I am definitely sure that you are a republican now. First you don't believe in science, per your poo-pooing the infant and ledges study. Secondly your several expressions of how scary and dark the world is. A study was done and right-wing (republicans and tea-baggers) all are a lot more fearful and believe that people are inherently bad. A scientific study so you probably will claim it's part of some leftist conspiracy because, you know, it isn't in the bible or some such shit.
And here I thought we were going to be friends...:-(
Yeah, toddlers, fine, probably not hanging at the pier alone:-) However, I'm guessing "Blythe Bowman" is not a breeder and so has no concept of how a parent can be relaxed and yet aware of their child's exact location. I myself didn't mind my kids clambering around near total strangers so long as the strangers weren't pervy looking (trenchcoats in summer, candy hanging out the pockets...). I think it is good for a child to develop a sense of awareness on their own and to develop the mental toughness that comes with navigating through life. If they choose to ask the gangbanger about his tats, most likely they'd be cheerfully explained. Briefly, I have an innate belief in the general goodness of people and see no reason to fear things that (statistically) never happen. Most children that are murdered or kidnapped are harmed at the hand of an immediate relative (father, mother, uncle, other male relative, other male friend of the family, other female, in that order of frequency). So, yeah, as a parent, I could be quiescently vigilant and seemingly oblivious, but that was mostly a ruse to observe my child in action and let him/her explore independently while supervised.
Thanks for the link I will definitely investigate that, from its description it definitely sounds like we are moving in a generally good direction. Dare I say progressive? I know some regressive folks are triggered by the word, I figure that's their problem.
hmm. I say if the kids are old enough to get to the pier unaccompanied, then they are safe to be there unattended. Kids are not as dumb as you think they are. From infancy they have an innate fear of drops, this has been studied by child psychologists using fake non-floor (glass). Infant kids (barely crawlers) do no go to the transparent floor areas, because their brief experience on earth has already taught them that. So, I think the main danger would be the kid getting over-excited and going over while trying to fish, reach an interesting trinker or barnacle, or fish eyeball... Because kids have a short attention span like most humans do. So, I say that it depends on the kid's maturity level. Because mine are mine, I would be closely supervising, what others do with theirs is up to them.
I would definitely warn an unattended kid if I saw him (lets face it, it's very likely to be him and not her) doing something dangerous in my eyes.
Well, yeah. But different parents have different tolerance levels of danger for their offspring and some kids are more aware and alert to the danger around them. Generally if your kids have been allowed to fall off small walls and have gotten some bumps and bruises along the way, they likely aren't the ones to go over the rail and into the ocean.
You expect me not to get defensive when you bold part of your message and question my comprehension/literacy? Fuck you! Did that aid your comprehension? You're welcome!
hahahaha Go back to eating cheetos and mountain dew you neckbeard bitch. I take whatever action I choose not the one demanded by fat-fucks like you. To clarify fat-fuck means you are fucking fat, not that you fuck fat chicks. The mechanics of two fat people fucking is not something that I am curious about.
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids. I think that (throwing a kid off the pier) scenario is extremely unlikely less than 1 in 100 million so I don't worry about it.
To be perfectly honest, I am very paranoid at the pier and anyplace with balconies opening to precipices. So generally there, I keep my kids nearby as they still like holding hands.
Yeah, I started watching a violent movie with my 8 year old son, he quickly got scared so we immediately switched to something else on Netflix. I normally don't even let it get that far and don't start scary movies with them around but he insisted and was feeling brave, so we tried to watch. We ended up watching "Nacho Libre". Subjecting your kids to material they are not ready for is definitely bad parenting.
They already have enough bullshit rules to deal with, I try to let them roam free when possible. Except for electronics, I hate them spending time on electronics.
The AC was responding to the comment about the pier. If people are going to the pier, then they should expect that rambunctious kids in their vicinity are par for the course. The movie things is something else entirely. I agree with you and the AC.
I'd say denying him a judge for at least the time Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing is the least they could do. If the republicans want to still refuse to give garland a hearing, then I'd also filibuster any possible opening in the final year as well.
Yes, deny Gorsuch until the end of tRumpF's term, that is what they did to Obama and that would be fair. The dems should also filibuster anything and everything tRumpF tries to push through that requires their assent. They should fight and never give in.
Slashdot Mirror
Myself, I I don't believe in using men with guns to suppress the competition.
Good to know you stand firmly on the side of labor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, one would be to reduce the amount of loans the government allows students to take out. Second, make loans able to be nullified in bankruptcy court, that would also help lower the cost of education and get rid of shysty schools.
You forgot your sarcasm tags
I'm guessing that what kenh meant was: "Why didn't you fucking stop hiring Indians?". Not, "why didn't you improve your interviewing process to weed out the bad seeds?" Seriously, you didn't come to the decision not to hire Indians after 4 bad ones? 6 more? It took you "four dozen Indians"? You sound really dense. Or, the allure of cheap labor was strong enough to curtail the learning curve for you. Probably that. Not so much that you were greedy, more that you saw it as the only way to move forward on a very small budget. I can definitely understand the temptation and ultimate decision. But for gawd's sake!, "four dozen!!!"?
I thought economics was a science
Boy were you naive! Good thing now you know economics is a religion based on nothing more than applying numbers to baseless/unfounded/unproven hypotheses.
Coal should stay in the ground where it does the least harm.
And the least good. We can't make rational decisions by only considering exclusively the cost xor benefits of a choice.
Really? We can't make rational decisions by considering cost vs benefits of a choice? That is absolutely the best way to make rational decisions so long as the usual bs move of externalizing environmental, societal, and future impacts isn't how we carry them out. As long as all costs are considered, then cost vs benefits is the only way to make a choice.
What would you propose we use a basis for decision making? Coin flip? Pray to the invisible hand of the market? Some other bullshit god?
So, progress. And your friends and their businesses can't make competitive offers? Their problem, like I said: Capitalism!
Maybe we'll end up in a situation where only mom and pop shops which get free labor from their kids and family that can help can be viable. That wouldn't be so bad, less of an accumulation of wealth by the few exploiting the many.
But just earlier you said I was an excellent parent, you are so fickle, very hard to please. Do you identify as a woman?
As I said, if they look like they mind or I feel they were being bothered, I interceded by removing my kids. So yeah. I also have very cute kids, not like those ugly and obese blond WASPs that are so annoying and entitled.
Believing in the innate goodness of people makes me a terrible parent? I am definitely sure that you are a republican now. First you don't believe in science, per your poo-pooing the infant and ledges study. Secondly your several expressions of how scary and dark the world is. A study was done and right-wing (republicans and tea-baggers) all are a lot more fearful and believe that people are inherently bad. A scientific study so you probably will claim it's part of some leftist conspiracy because, you know, it isn't in the bible or some such shit.
And here I thought we were going to be friends... :-(
I suppose telling my kids that all people are bad and only trust the pastor and the police would make me a good parent in your eyes. The police are nothing but jack-booted thugs hiding their murderous and racist intents behind a badge. And pastors are just that, fleecing their sheep.
But just earlier you said I was an excellent parent, you are so fickle, very hard to please. Do you identify as a woman?
As I said, if they look like they mind or I feel they were being bothered, I interceded by removing my kids. So yeah. I also have very cute kids, not like those ugly and obese blond WASPs that are so annoying and entitled.
Believing in the innate goodness of people makes me a terrible parent? I am definitely sure that you are a republican now. First you don't believe in science, per your poo-pooing the infant and ledges study. Secondly your several expressions of how scary and dark the world is. A study was done and right-wing (republicans and tea-baggers) all are a lot more fearful and believe that people are inherently bad. A scientific study so you probably will claim it's part of some leftist conspiracy because, you know, it isn't in the bible or some such shit.
And here I thought we were going to be friends... :-(
Yeah, toddlers, fine, probably not hanging at the pier alone :-)
However, I'm guessing "Blythe Bowman" is not a breeder and so has no concept of how a parent can be relaxed and yet aware of their child's exact location. I myself didn't mind my kids clambering around near total strangers so long as the strangers weren't pervy looking (trenchcoats in summer, candy hanging out the pockets...). I think it is good for a child to develop a sense of awareness on their own and to develop the mental toughness that comes with navigating through life. If they choose to ask the gangbanger about his tats, most likely they'd be cheerfully explained. Briefly, I have an innate belief in the general goodness of people and see no reason to fear things that (statistically) never happen. Most children that are murdered or kidnapped are harmed at the hand of an immediate relative (father, mother, uncle, other male relative, other male friend of the family, other female, in that order of frequency). So, yeah, as a parent, I could be quiescently vigilant and seemingly oblivious, but that was mostly a ruse to observe my child in action and let him/her explore independently while supervised.
Thanks for the link I will definitely investigate that, from its description it definitely sounds like we are moving in a generally good direction. Dare I say progressive? I know some regressive folks are triggered by the word, I figure that's their problem.
hmm. I say if the kids are old enough to get to the pier unaccompanied, then they are safe to be there unattended. Kids are not as dumb as you think they are. From infancy they have an innate fear of drops, this has been studied by child psychologists using fake non-floor (glass). Infant kids (barely crawlers) do no go to the transparent floor areas, because their brief experience on earth has already taught them that. So, I think the main danger would be the kid getting over-excited and going over while trying to fish, reach an interesting trinker or barnacle, or fish eyeball... Because kids have a short attention span like most humans do. So, I say that it depends on the kid's maturity level. Because mine are mine, I would be closely supervising, what others do with theirs is up to them.
I would definitely warn an unattended kid if I saw him (lets face it, it's very likely to be him and not her) doing something dangerous in my eyes.
Yeah, I monitor mine. Mostly because I'm afraid of heights so that is a scary situation for me.
Well, yeah. But different parents have different tolerance levels of danger for their offspring and some kids are more aware and alert to the danger around them. Generally if your kids have been allowed to fall off small walls and have gotten some bumps and bruises along the way, they likely aren't the ones to go over the rail and into the ocean.
You expect me not to get defensive when you bold part of your message and question my comprehension/literacy? Fuck you! Did that aid your comprehension? You're welcome!
hahahaha
Go back to eating cheetos and mountain dew you neckbeard bitch.
I take whatever action I choose not the one demanded by fat-fucks like you. To clarify fat-fuck means you are fucking fat, not that you fuck fat chicks. The mechanics of two fat people fucking is not something that I am curious about.
Is your world really that scary? How do you manage to get out of bed in the morning?
Thanks! That's generally how I try to be as a parent. I read a lot of parenting books, cause I'm a nerd :-).
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids. I think that (throwing a kid off the pier) scenario is extremely unlikely less than 1 in 100 million so I don't worry about it.
To be perfectly honest, I am very paranoid at the pier and anyplace with balconies opening to precipices. So generally there, I keep my kids nearby as they still like holding hands.
dangerous? Define dangerous in this scenario. I think you live in a very scary world, much more so than the one I live in. I feel sorry for you.
Yeah, I started watching a violent movie with my 8 year old son, he quickly got scared so we immediately switched to something else on Netflix. I normally don't even let it get that far and don't start scary movies with them around but he insisted and was feeling brave, so we tried to watch. We ended up watching "Nacho Libre". Subjecting your kids to material they are not ready for is definitely bad parenting.
They already have enough bullshit rules to deal with, I try to let them roam free when possible. Except for electronics, I hate them spending time on electronics.
The AC was responding to the comment about the pier. If people are going to the pier, then they should expect that rambunctious kids in their vicinity are par for the course. The movie things is something else entirely.
I agree with you and the AC.
I'd say denying him a judge for at least the time Merrick Garland was denied even a hearing is the least they could do. If the republicans want to still refuse to give garland a hearing, then I'd also filibuster any possible opening in the final year as well.
Yes, deny Gorsuch until the end of tRumpF's term, that is what they did to Obama and that would be fair.
The dems should also filibuster anything and everything tRumpF tries to push through that requires their assent. They should fight and never give in.
there was little difference seen by a lot of us between shillary and the large oompah-loompah.