>>>"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right". For example, one might term a new tax structure in which the government takes half of your income "balanced".
Canada and Europe already does that. They call it "society"
- Virginia left the U.S. - Virginia was now an independent, self-governing Republic. - For the western counties to split from this independent Republic, they had to first obtain permission from Virginia's Legislature. Since the Legislature did *not* give permission the secession was not legal.
It's the same as if these events happened:
- UK leaves the European Union - UK is now an independent, self-governing state - The northern counties in Scotland secede. That too would be an illegal act since Parliament did not give permission for the north to leave.
With that kind of talk you'll never get elected to office. It's much more effective to use scare tactics like, "There are sex offenders everywhere and we must crack down. I'll make sure to enact new laws that give sex offenders lifelong sentences, such that they will be tracked by the government until the day they die!"
[correction] I only got [4] months (April, May, June, July) - why am I being cutoff??? It's supposed to last longer than that. A friend of mine received unemployment for 13 months and we both live within the same state.
Grrr.
Sorry. Obviously I'm very very angry right now. I was counting on that check carrying me until January and now suddenly it's stopped for no apparent reason. I paid $19,500 in taxes last year. I've done my part and now for the government to turn its back on me is completely unacceptable.
You're being facetious, but the government-run system really is a mess. I tried to file my biweekly claim for unemployment and it told me it's "inactive". Then I followed the instructions to reactivate it, and I was told I was ineligible because I haven't worked these last six months. Well of course I haven't worked. That's why I was on unemployment! So apparently I'm just supposed to drift without income. Thanks Mr. Obama.
Stupid, stupid government.
I only got 3 months (April, May, June) - why am I being cutoff???
Why should I pay for a program that claims I'm ineligible to receive benefits? That's like being forced to pay Microsoft for Windows 7, but they never bother to send it to me.
And also you're confusing Republicans with Libertarians. The "L" party supports repealing everything, but the R party supports safety-net style programs such as Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment, SCHIP, et cetera.
And finally - you missed the point.
If I can't even get an unemployment check, how am I supposed to get help if I have breast cancer? If that govt program runs like the unemployment program, then I'll fill-out a lengthy time-consuming form just to be told I'm "ineligible" for help. Government-run monopolies are crap. Look at the bankrupt post office and amtrak for obvious examples.
You're being facetious, but the government-run system really is a mess. I tried to file my biweekly claim for unemployment and it told me it's "inactive". Then I followed the instructions to reactivate it, and I was told I was ineligible because I haven't worked these last six months. Well of course I haven't worked. That's why I was on unemployment! So apparently I'm just supposed to drift without income. Is this the so-called "government compassion" the Democrats / progressives/ leftists propagandize about?
Stupid, stupid government.
I think when I finally get back to work (probably January when managers get new budgets and fresh money), I'm going to refuse to pay the Unemployment. Why should I pay for a program that doesn't help me out when I need it?
>>>they can modify the constitution to give themselves the authority. I know, I know, inconvenient facts should be left where they cannot damage your arguments.
Inconvenient facts? You mean like this one? I don't see Congress proposing any amendments that would give them power to "fine citizens for not buying X product". Do you? No? Then the power does not exist and the portion of the Healthcare bill that says citizens will be fined is unconstitutional.
For that matter, I cannot find anyplace in the constitution that says "Congress shall...provide health care to the People". That clause does not exist, therefore amendment 10 is in effect - the power is reserved to the States.
[Insert your favorite ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN repoerter] is a left-wing Democrat-registered stooge who pretends to be objection but skews facts to support his/her pro-larger government bias.
According to that nifty little piece-of-paper the U.S, government sends me every year, I've paid-in about $20,000 to Medicare so when I turn ~70 I'm certainly going to sign up. I want back my twenty thousand dollars. Same applies to SSI. After I've got all my money back that I paid in, then sure I'll drop out. ----- In the meantime I have half-a-million in the bank (and rising), so I can afford to pay for my own ~$200 per year doctor visit. I don't need insurance, either private or government.
- Virginia left the U.S. - Virginia was now an independent, self-governing Republic. - For the western counties to split from this independent Republic, they had to first obtain permission from Virginia's Legislature. Since the Legislature did *not* give permission the secession was not legal.
It's the same as if these events happened:
- UK leaves the European Union - UK is now an independent, self-governing state - The northern counties in Scotland secede without the permission of the UK Parliament. That too would be an illegal act.
>>> (snip)...PBS could safely leave them with zero air time... (snip)
So then you admit that PBS is biased in favor of the Democrats/leftists. Thank you for agreeing with me. Oh and the alternative proposed by Republicans is to merely make minor changes to the system we have, such as extending Medicare to the 3% of Americans who want insurance, but are not private or government covered. Simple as that.
>>>Where have you been living for the last 50 years? Last I checked, most roads in the US are free to use, not tolled.
If you truly have lived in the U.S. the last 50 years, then you'd know the roads ARE tolled. And the money is collected every time you fill-up with gasoline, and that money funneled directly to the State D.O.T. and the US D.O.T. respectively.
And our post office is funded by the sales of stamps. If you don't send any mail, then you don't pay (at least that's how it's supposed to work).
>>>You are angry at people who text but still you go through the trouble of checking who is calling
Yeah because a quarter-second glance to see if it's my wife calling (important), or just some headhunter (ignore), is clearly equivalent to spending several minutes composing a love letter to your girlfriend via TXT while driving.
(rolls eyes)
Just fuck off. On second thought, no, I hope you text yourself to death. Like the busdriver who rear-ended a car because he was too busy composing to notice the traffic jam a mile ahead of him. Except in your case you shouldn't hit anybody else. Instead you should go drive into a tree and help decrease the surplus population, hopefully before you have a chance to spread your stupid, inconsiderate, self-centered genes to the next generation. "That's the exact reason I chose a blackberry over the iPhone; tactile buttons." Inconsiderate bastard who endangers everybody's else's lives.
Is it really necessary to take offense where none was meant?
I only used that shortened link because the google version stretches on forever - htp://images.google.com/images?q=garbage%20pail%20kids&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
>>>Whine all you want you little asshole, but gov't-funded healthcare is coming, and you are going to help pay for it, whether you like it or not. There is nothing you are capable of saying or doing that will change that. ^_^ >>>
Yes I know. Because Democrats refuse to listen to the people's voices that are crying out to stop.
But there IS still something I can do. If Congress follows through on its plan to fine Americans ~$2000 per year for not having private insurance, as Massachusetts already does with its citizens, then I will simply refuse to pay. And if the IRS comes after me, then I will hire a gaggle of lawyers to file a lawsuit - C64_love v. United States. I will NOT bow to an unconstitutional law because *nowhere* does our supreme law give Congress the authority to fine people for not buying a product.
>>>I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece.
I disagree. Not that I have any great love fox Murdoch, but I don't trust the BBC either. They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.
And you know that's the truth. Even when PBS discusses persons like Thomas Jefferson, they conveniently leave out certain facts, like he said citizens should shoot tyrannical leaders. Or that he he said states should nullify unconstitutional laws passed by Congress (per amendment 10). Or that he felt a Central Bank (think Federal Reserve) should not exist, because money == power to influence politicians. Or "When people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."
PBS very carefully censors what they reveal, in order to continue supporting their "we need more government" viewpoint. Case in point - this morning they interviewed a guy for 10 minutes about why everyone should be pro-government-run healthcare. Never once did they cover the other side.
>>>hardly worse than what CNN or F/X News accomplishes with deliberate imbalance. I mean, is it even possible to conduct ethical journalism filming from the deck of an operational U.S. aircraft carrier? >>>
I don't know. Why don't we ask NBC anchorman Matt Lauer who spent a week on an aircraft carrier. POINT - Everyone always picks on FOX News, as if they are somehow soooo much worse than the rest of the channels. But they are ALL biased, mostly in favor of the party the reporters are registered with (D).
I've heard many europeans complain they can't watch TV shows on NBC.com or scifi.com or FOX.com or ABC.com. (And then they bittorrented the show.) I don't know about U.S. government-run organizations like NPR or PBS.
You're being sarcastic, but you are correct. When it comes to *local* weather the details are left to the TV studios, which is why you can tune to different channels and hear different results (one will say 90 and the other 85 for the predicted high). They provide extra precision that the national forecast does not.
In my area we had a funnel cloud pass through and while the NWS issued the warning, it was the local guy who tracked the storm and told us which specific streets were in danger.
No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias
They labeled you a troll because "they can't handle the truth". Every organization is biased in some respect. Just follow the money back to the source.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right". For example, one might term a new tax structure in which the government takes half of your income "balanced".
Canada and Europe already does that. They call it "society"
Well in MY opinion this order of events happened:
- Virginia left the U.S.
- Virginia was now an independent, self-governing Republic.
- For the western counties to split from this independent Republic, they had to first obtain permission from Virginia's Legislature. Since the Legislature did *not* give permission the secession was not legal.
It's the same as if these events happened:
- UK leaves the European Union
- UK is now an independent, self-governing state
- The northern counties in Scotland secede. That too would be an illegal act since Parliament did not give permission for the north to leave.
With that kind of talk you'll never get elected to office. It's much more effective to use scare tactics like, "There are sex offenders everywhere and we must crack down. I'll make sure to enact new laws that give sex offenders lifelong sentences, such that they will be tracked by the government until the day they die!"
That's how you win votes.
[correction] I only got [4] months (April, May, June, July) - why am I being cutoff??? It's supposed to last longer than that. A friend of mine received unemployment for 13 months and we both live within the same state.
Grrr.
Sorry. Obviously I'm very very angry right now. I was counting on that check carrying me until January and now suddenly it's stopped for no apparent reason. I paid $19,500 in taxes last year. I've done my part and now for the government to turn its back on me is completely unacceptable.
>>>That period is now over.
I only received four months (April, May, June, July). Unemployment benefits are supposed to last longer than that you stupid twit.
You're being facetious, but the government-run system really is a mess. I tried to file my biweekly claim for unemployment and it told me it's "inactive". Then I followed the instructions to reactivate it, and I was told I was ineligible because I haven't worked these last six months. Well of course I haven't worked. That's why I was on unemployment! So apparently I'm just supposed to drift without income. Thanks Mr. Obama.
Stupid, stupid government.
I only got 3 months (April, May, June) - why am I being cutoff???
>>>And now you want to refuse to pay into it?
Why should I pay for a program that claims I'm ineligible to receive benefits? That's like being forced to pay Microsoft for Windows 7, but they never bother to send it to me.
And also you're confusing Republicans with Libertarians. The "L" party supports repealing everything, but the R party supports safety-net style programs such as Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment, SCHIP, et cetera.
And finally - you missed the point.
If I can't even get an unemployment check, how am I supposed to get help if I have breast cancer? If that govt program runs like the unemployment program, then I'll fill-out a lengthy time-consuming form just to be told I'm "ineligible" for help. Government-run monopolies are crap. Look at the bankrupt post office and amtrak for obvious examples.
Don't blame the Republicans - it's the Democrats who are in charge. They SAID they extended benefits to 1.5 years, but apparently that's not true.
You're being facetious, but the government-run system really is a mess. I tried to file my biweekly claim for unemployment and it told me it's "inactive". Then I followed the instructions to reactivate it, and I was told I was ineligible because I haven't worked these last six months. Well of course I haven't worked. That's why I was on unemployment! So apparently I'm just supposed to drift without income. Is this the so-called "government compassion" the Democrats / progressives/ leftists propagandize about?
Stupid, stupid government.
I think when I finally get back to work (probably January when managers get new budgets and fresh money), I'm going to refuse to pay the Unemployment. Why should I pay for a program that doesn't help me out when I need it?
>>>they can modify the constitution to give themselves the authority. I know, I know, inconvenient facts should be left where they cannot damage your arguments.
Inconvenient facts? You mean like this one? I don't see Congress proposing any amendments that would give them power to "fine citizens for not buying X product". Do you? No? Then the power does not exist and the portion of the Healthcare bill that says citizens will be fined is unconstitutional.
For that matter, I cannot find anyplace in the constitution that says "Congress shall...provide health care to the People". That clause does not exist, therefore amendment 10 is in effect - the power is reserved to the States.
[Insert your favorite ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN repoerter] is a left-wing Democrat-registered stooge who pretends to be objection
but skews facts to support his/her pro-larger government bias.
>>>I expect you to decline Medicare coverage
According to that nifty little piece-of-paper the U.S, government sends me every year, I've paid-in about $20,000 to Medicare so when I turn ~70 I'm certainly going to sign up. I want back my twenty thousand dollars. Same applies to SSI. After I've got all my money back that I paid in, then sure I'll drop out. ----- In the meantime I have half-a-million in the bank (and rising), so I can afford to pay for my own ~$200 per year doctor visit. I don't need insurance, either private or government.
Thanks.
Well in MY opinion this order of events happened:
- Virginia left the U.S.
- Virginia was now an independent, self-governing Republic.
- For the western counties to split from this independent Republic, they had to first obtain permission from Virginia's Legislature. Since the Legislature did *not* give permission the secession was not legal.
It's the same as if these events happened:
- UK leaves the European Union
- UK is now an independent, self-governing state
- The northern counties in Scotland secede without the permission of the UK Parliament. That too would be an illegal act.
>>> (snip) ...PBS could safely leave them with zero air time... (snip)
So then you admit that PBS is biased in favor of the Democrats/leftists. Thank you for agreeing with me. Oh and the alternative proposed by Republicans is to merely make minor changes to the system we have, such as extending Medicare to the 3% of Americans who want insurance, but are not private or government covered. Simple as that.
>>>Where have you been living for the last 50 years? Last I checked, most roads in the US are free to use, not tolled.
If you truly have lived in the U.S. the last 50 years, then you'd know the roads ARE tolled. And the money is collected every time you fill-up with gasoline, and that money funneled directly to the State D.O.T. and the US D.O.T. respectively.
And our post office is funded by the sales of stamps. If you don't send any mail, then you don't pay (at least that's how it's supposed to work).
Yeah whatever. I'll change my sig just to make you happy, since you apparently lack Tolerance for others' opinions.
>>>You are angry at people who text but still you go through the trouble of checking who is calling
Yeah because a quarter-second glance to see if it's my wife calling (important), or just some headhunter (ignore), is clearly equivalent to spending several minutes composing a love letter to your girlfriend via TXT while driving.
(rolls eyes)
Just fuck off. On second thought, no, I hope you text yourself to death. Like the busdriver who rear-ended a car because he was too busy composing to notice the traffic jam a mile ahead of him. Except in your case you shouldn't hit anybody else. Instead you should go drive into a tree and help decrease the surplus population, hopefully before you have a chance to spread your stupid, inconsiderate, self-centered genes to the next generation. "That's the exact reason I chose a blackberry over the iPhone; tactile buttons." Inconsiderate bastard who endangers everybody's else's lives.
Is it really necessary to take offense where none was meant?
I only used that shortened link because the google version stretches on forever - htp://images.google.com/images?q=garbage%20pail%20kids&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Are you a politician?
You completely failed to answer his question which was - How does removing Word cause problems with hardware installs? It won't have any effect.
>>>Whine all you want you little asshole, but gov't-funded healthcare is coming, and you are going to help pay for it, whether you like it or not. There is nothing you are capable of saying or doing that will change that. ^_^
>>>
Yes I know.
Because Democrats refuse to listen to
the people's voices that are crying out to stop.
But there IS still something I can do. If Congress follows through on its plan to fine Americans ~$2000 per year for not having private insurance, as Massachusetts already does with its citizens, then I will simply refuse to pay. And if the IRS comes after me, then I will hire a gaggle of lawyers to file a lawsuit - C64_love v. United States. I will NOT bow to an unconstitutional law because *nowhere* does our supreme law give Congress the authority to fine people for not buying a product.
>>>I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece.
I disagree. Not that I have any great love fox Murdoch, but I don't trust the BBC either. They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.
And you know that's the truth. Even when PBS discusses persons like Thomas Jefferson, they conveniently leave out certain facts, like he said citizens should shoot tyrannical leaders. Or that he he said states should nullify unconstitutional laws passed by Congress (per amendment 10). Or that he felt a Central Bank (think Federal Reserve) should not exist, because money == power to influence politicians. Or "When people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."
PBS very carefully censors what they reveal, in order to continue supporting their "we need more government" viewpoint. Case in point - this morning they interviewed a guy for 10 minutes about why everyone should be pro-government-run healthcare. Never once did they cover the other side.
Slanted. Biased.
>>>hardly worse than what CNN or F/X News accomplishes with deliberate imbalance. I mean, is it even possible to conduct ethical journalism filming from the deck of an operational U.S. aircraft carrier?
>>>
I don't know. Why don't we ask NBC anchorman Matt Lauer who spent a week on an aircraft carrier. POINT - Everyone always picks on FOX News, as if they are somehow soooo much worse than the rest of the channels. But they are ALL biased, mostly in favor of the party the reporters are registered with (D).
I've heard many europeans complain they can't watch TV shows on NBC.com or scifi.com or FOX.com or ABC.com. (And then they bittorrented the show.) I don't know about U.S. government-run organizations like NPR or PBS.
You're being sarcastic, but you are correct. When it comes to *local* weather the details are left to the TV studios, which is why you can tune to different channels and hear different results (one will say 90 and the other 85 for the predicted high). They provide extra precision that the national forecast does not.
In my area we had a funnel cloud pass through and while the NWS issued the warning, it was the local guy who tracked the storm and told us which specific streets were in danger.
No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias
They labeled you a troll because "they can't handle the truth". Every organization is biased in some respect. Just follow the money back to the source.