Evidence supporting a hypothesis is not cool because you it makes you feel bad. The fact that low paid jobs are easy is ignored as an incentive because it feels bad when someone doesn't get a full share. That the vast majority of men have miserable jobs is ignored because you don't really feel anything about that.
The government should obviously mandate that all plastic bags have a lead weight glued on so that they'll sink with the rest the junk dumped in the ocean.
Maybe if there weren't so many Commie thieves like you around the rich wouldn't try to hide their wealth, but would spend it lavishly. The pure misers like Buffet aren't a problem either, since they'll give away their money rather than leave it to their family
It costs taxpayers and society in general, but hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and cartel members make their living off it, and politicians can harvest donations and votes from them.
Carriers don't just fight against carriers, and carriers aren't only sunk by carriers, so that comparison is meaningless. Of course it's possible that the money could be better spent, but I'm pretty sure saving money on carriers to train soldiers to speak Japanese wouldn't have been a good idea during WWII
In a socialist system like California the individual is only entitled to his fair share of the collective security. Government knows what's best for you, which might require your life being sacrificed. It's helps to think of the glorious future of your state as the life drains out of your body, and the guiding hand of Feinstein leads you into the light.
Our current "progressive" system results in the rich paying less than the poor in many cases because they are better equipped to use the system in their favor.
Do you seriously believe that the rich pay less in tax than the poor?
You begin by saying that people should examine what people really stand for despite what they call themselves, but then criticize some for interpreting "liberals" as standing for something other than the official definition of "protecting people's rights and freedoms and ensuring equality", which is a pretty implausible motivation to ascribe to the degenerate "liberals" in office (and is little more than a platitude that every political movement has claimed to stand for). You're just blowing a bunch of semantic smoke at the "opposition".
Politics is sock puppets all the way down, your regulations against "rich guys" would just limit some people's speech while increasing the influence of other conspiracies operated by various unions, cartels, and zealots.
Could you, an untrained unpaid person with no body armor no partner and no backup on the way get away with killing a kid because he was holding something that looked like a gun? If so, why haven't you, do you like kids on your lawn?
What did they do during the Depression? Not much. It's true that since then Americans' attitude has become more entitled since then, but with that entitlement came laziness, physical and mental weakness, and a general state of helplessness. While this slime mold could be a source of power for bigger government, it could also be wiped up with a sponge.
And the Europeans seem to think a "civilized society" is one where there are no rights, where the people are the greatest threat to themselves, and so they need to be disarmed because they love their government so much. You guys have so much cognitive dissonance you have cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance.
Why don't they attack police stations then? If the goal is to hurt people, feel in control, and make an otherwise insignificant demise infamous and tragic, being dominated by the intended victim spoils the whole thing.
Stop playing dumb, it's not "misplaced" to be angry at a business for a decision that business made. Even if it opens a "market opportunity" that exceedingly few of us are in a position to take, assuming that behind-the-scenes government pressure doesn't make the "freedom" you're assuming an illusion.
No one is going to buy the policy unless it is worth the premium. Of course if they want to pay $10,000/month they can find something better. The people forced to buy government insurance, on the other hand have zero guarantee of getting anything: "Your appointment with a veterinary school dropout is scheduled 15 months from now, citizen."
More like CIA bases, and since the CIA doesn't get public validation they nurse their private grudges. These operations should nicely rekindle things to create a long overdue retaliatory attack on US soil, which will really liven up some careers at Langley.
Protecting your wealth is paranoia resulting from a bad conscience? Like if you earned it 100% legitimately you'd feel great about letting people take it? Hispanics sneaking onto someone else's land isn't parasitical? Like if we sealed the border Latin America would have more wealth? Ideology is the leading cause of stupidity.
As long as taxes are too high lower taxes are in fact always better. After government has been cut 90% further cuts may indeed be inadvisable. If the road suddenly disappears as we're driving to work, we'll know that we went to far, and bump them up by 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence supporting a hypothesis is not cool because you it makes you feel bad. The fact that low paid jobs are easy is ignored as an incentive because it feels bad when someone doesn't get a full share. That the vast majority of men have miserable jobs is ignored because you don't really feel anything about that.
WARNING: Wire fault detected!
The government should obviously mandate that all plastic bags have a lead weight glued on so that they'll sink with the rest the junk dumped in the ocean.
most people just carried it home in their hand.
Probably resulting in millions of items being dropped and having to be bought twice.
Why didn't the girl kick the boy in the balls and take the electronics? Obviously she didn't want it bad enough
Maybe if there weren't so many Commie thieves like you around the rich wouldn't try to hide their wealth, but would spend it lavishly. The pure misers like Buffet aren't a problem either, since they'll give away their money rather than leave it to their family
It costs taxpayers and society in general, but hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and cartel members make their living off it, and politicians can harvest donations and votes from them.
Carriers don't just fight against carriers, and carriers aren't only sunk by carriers, so that comparison is meaningless. Of course it's possible that the money could be better spent, but I'm pretty sure saving money on carriers to train soldiers to speak Japanese wouldn't have been a good idea during WWII
Marriage is not a right, has nothing to do with love.
In a socialist system like California the individual is only entitled to his fair share of the collective security. Government knows what's best for you, which might require your life being sacrificed. It's helps to think of the glorious future of your state as the life drains out of your body, and the guiding hand of Feinstein leads you into the light.
Our current "progressive" system results in the rich paying less than the poor in many cases because they are better equipped to use the system in their favor.
Do you seriously believe that the rich pay less in tax than the poor?
You begin by saying that people should examine what people really stand for despite what they call themselves, but then criticize some for interpreting "liberals" as standing for something other than the official definition of "protecting people's rights and freedoms and ensuring equality", which is a pretty implausible motivation to ascribe to the degenerate "liberals" in office (and is little more than a platitude that every political movement has claimed to stand for). You're just blowing a bunch of semantic smoke at the "opposition".
Politics is sock puppets all the way down, your regulations against "rich guys" would just limit some people's speech while increasing the influence of other conspiracies operated by various unions, cartels, and zealots.
Who needs more than this?
Could you, an untrained unpaid person with no body armor no partner and no backup on the way get away with killing a kid because he was holding something that looked like a gun? If so, why haven't you, do you like kids on your lawn?
What did they do during the Depression? Not much. It's true that since then Americans' attitude has become more entitled since then, but with that entitlement came laziness, physical and mental weakness, and a general state of helplessness. While this slime mold could be a source of power for bigger government, it could also be wiped up with a sponge.
And the Europeans seem to think a "civilized society" is one where there are no rights, where the people are the greatest threat to themselves, and so they need to be disarmed because they love their government so much. You guys have so much cognitive dissonance you have cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance.
You realize the name "Affordable Care Act" comes right out of Propaganda Naming Department and has less connection to reality than "Obamacare" does?
Why don't they attack police stations then? If the goal is to hurt people, feel in control, and make an otherwise insignificant demise infamous and tragic, being dominated by the intended victim spoils the whole thing.
Stop playing dumb, it's not "misplaced" to be angry at a business for a decision that business made. Even if it opens a "market opportunity" that exceedingly few of us are in a position to take, assuming that behind-the-scenes government pressure doesn't make the "freedom" you're assuming an illusion.
No one is going to buy the policy unless it is worth the premium. Of course if they want to pay $10,000/month they can find something better. The people forced to buy government insurance, on the other hand have zero guarantee of getting anything: "Your appointment with a veterinary school dropout is scheduled 15 months from now, citizen."
More like CIA bases, and since the CIA doesn't get public validation they nurse their private grudges. These operations should nicely rekindle things to create a long overdue retaliatory attack on US soil, which will really liven up some careers at Langley.
As a service to his fans, so they will always have new books to occupy them.
He most of his shares. I don't think he's interested at all
Protecting your wealth is paranoia resulting from a bad conscience? Like if you earned it 100% legitimately you'd feel great about letting people take it? Hispanics sneaking onto someone else's land isn't parasitical? Like if we sealed the border Latin America would have more wealth? Ideology is the leading cause of stupidity.
As long as taxes are too high lower taxes are in fact always better. After government has been cut 90% further cuts may indeed be inadvisable. If the road suddenly disappears as we're driving to work, we'll know that we went to far, and bump them up by 1%.