What an irony when politicians are talking about creating jobs. Economy is not about creating jobs, but about eliminating the need to work and rising the quality of life.
This is the way to the future.
Perhaps; the problem is, with the approach our society is taking, the "rising quality of life" is no where to be found.
The news report quantifies the US poverty level as a pair of statistics:
The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions.
But it doesn't go on to describe the lifestyle of a person in that income group. I mean, suppose a person chooses to live without a car, a yearly vacation abroad, or the latest iDevice. Surely that person's poverty level would be different from a person who chooses to have a car, take yearly vacations abroad, and buy the latest iPhone?
Let's start with the individual: Average rent:$650 x 12= $7800/yr
$11,139 - $7,800 housing cost = $3,339 left
Average monthly grocery bill for a single male age 19-50 (without malnourished oneself): $250 x 12 = $3,000 grocery cost
$3,339 - $3,000 = $339 left
Average utility bill for > 700 sq. ft. apartment: $150/mo x 12 = $1,800
$339 - $1,800 = -$1,461
Go ahead and double the rent/utils, quadruple the grocery cost for the family of 4.
Call me a troll or hater or whatever but please, when that same Russian man bought those illegal unmentioned stuff (I have not read TFA) from ebay, the us was just too happy to pocket the cash.
Heh, reminds me of something I heard on a Chris Rock standup rerun last night...
Drugs are illegal, but ATM machines are open 24 hours a day. 24 hours a day. For who? Who the fuck is it open for? Have you ever taken out $300
at four o'clock in the morning for something positive?
10G for a MAJORITY stake? No one can accuse you of being a greedy bastard, can they?
Greedy? Hardly - just not stupid with my money.
What's the real value of the company? Sales figures? Profits for the last 2 years? Is there even $10,000 worth of assets, so if the plan goes tits-up I can get my investment back?
See, these are the sort of questions people who aren't failures in life know to ask, before handing over 5-figure amounts to dumbfucks who are too lazy to get jobs and fund their own stupid idea (yea, I think it's a stupid idea to boot).
"Sure kid, you need money to get started in life? Fine, here's a few bucks, but I own everything you ever make in the future!"
Would you have preferred I just said, "Fuck you, earn your own money you lazy slacker, instead of panhandling for it online?"
Maybe try a smaller donation option, or better yet, just leave it for a better person to do.
Making downright stupid investments, for no actual return other than a handful of $2 t-shirts, is not what would qualify an individual as a "better person" than I... unless I've somehow fallen into an alternate dimension in which "better person" translates to "absolute fucking moron who deserves to be robbed blind."
To quote an old idiom, a fool and his money are soon parted. To quote a slightly less old one, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
That way I don't have to waste my life with free tech support.
If you honestly consider spending time with your grandmother, who is likely not long for this world, as "wasting your life," I feel really, really sorry for you, dude.
Get of my lawn, maybe, but if I'm dropping $10,000 to help a startup I'd like to own part of the startup. Dropping $185 for early access to something that interests you makes some sense, but $10,000 just for a bunch of items and "prestige"? I could see if it was a charitable cause or something, but this...? Why?
Seconded.
You want 10 G's to start your "business?" fine, I'll trade you for a majority stake.
i think the lack Capitalization and lack of Proper punctuation may be more Useful in Finding people suffering from Various Mental Disorders on the other hand it may merely Indicate a shortcoming In the posters education isn,t it obvious that when some one fails to Use punctuation and Capitalization correctly that they are a Tragedy in Waiting clearly the fbi is Onto Something or at least they Think They Are it cant be simply a case of people Being too lazy to punctuate their sentences or find the fucking shift key many messages on twitter come from mobile devices where it can be pretty damned inconvenient to apply capitals and punctuation marks as compared to a proper keyboard
And then they hold you in contempt of court until you turn it over.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/24/024233
So? I'm willing to fight for my freedom.
No, you wouldn't be "fighting", you'd be sitting in jail.
So? I'm willing to fight for AC's freedom.
That's what, supposedly, makes this a great nation - not our willingness to fight for our own rights, but our willingness to fight for the rights of others.
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
Not really - in all three scenarios, the bad outcome is almost always a direct result of insufficient education/training.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
Yea, sometimes, and sometimes the anti-gun people use equally-if-not-more ridiculous rationales for their position as well. No worries, though, I can tell from the fact your posts lack terms like 'gun nut' that you're not one of those types (or at least, it appears that way), I was merely pointing out the similarity for the sake of those reading our conversation.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days...
Not around these parts. Sure, they have the standard 'graduate license' BS, but in reality most kids in the city I currently reside in don't take their license exams here - they go to one of the little podunkt towns nearby, where the test consists of making a loop around the city square and parallel parking in front of the DMV. So, the result is a bunch of untrained (driver's ed is not a required course) young folks, who happen to think they're bullet proof, piloting 300 lb+ death machines in city traffic (or on the nearby interstate, fun fun) that they have zero experience with... needless to say, it's a recipe for disaster.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient?
Honestly, I've been reading the responses to your post (specifically calzones and dknoy's posts), and I like where they're taking it.
Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns
For those who have proven (to their fellow citizens, not the government) themselves to be proper stewards of the right, I think it should be easier to access all types of weapons and ordnance (yes, ordnance). I think this is where a lot of people make their mistake: they seem to think the government should be in the business of deciding who does and doesn't have access to the tools required to take the government down, should it become tyrannical, which completely defeats the purpose of our 2nd Amendment.
Aren't they also asking you to surrender your password and access codes for phones, laptops, etc., whenever you board a plane, and have now extended that to searches of a vehicle, and in fact, they can now force you to reveal your password without charging you with any crime. So then they compel you to surrender your identity and equipment... and then use your identity and equipment to pretend to be you, in order to do the same to others.
Agent Smith, you have competition.
ProTip: Police forces can only do what the citizenry allows them to do.
Of course, to change that trend would require a complete reversal of the status quo mentality of only being willing to defend the rights of those one agrees with.
> Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
You're assuming that everyone [with a gun] is capable of behaving rationally in an entirely irrational situation. you are pointing your gun at someone else just like the initial shooter is doing. Do you trust the person on the far side of the theater to know that you're not an accomplice?
Regarding this particular situation, the right thing to do would be to not draw, as the smoke permeating the darkened room would make identifying the target next to impossible, and as every shooter with half a brain knows (granted, that's not all of them), you never take a shot if you don't know what your shooting at, and what's behind it.
Concealed carry or not, the smart people are the one's who took cover and avoided shooting/getting shot.
> and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
And you are entitled to your opinion too (even if it is wrong)
The great thing about opinions is, their subjective nature prevents them from being right or wrong. How the opinion is expressed, however, can be decidedly so - i.e., referring to all concealed carry licensees as "whackjobs with guns" is likely the wrong way to express it (unless your intention is to make yourself appear an asshole).
The Supreme Court has been as thoroughly purchased as congress. Corporations are people. Money is speech. The court no longer serves the people any more than congress does.
So, essentially what you're saying is that the soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed to protect liberty?
On a seemingly (but not actually) unrelated note, it's been discovered that the bank HSBC has been laundering money for Mexican drug lords and Al Queda for quite some time now; How much would you be willing to bet that nobody goes to Gitmo, er, "jail" over this?
Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!"... under your shirt.
Not to mention, don't the vast majority of Texans live within the Constitution Free Zone?
For claiming to have a "deep love of freedom," they sure do have funny ways of showing it...
Once you start shooting, how are the other whackjobs with guns (oops, my bias slipped out there) supposed to know whether you're one of the 'good guys' or not?
Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
'Course, I can tell from your initial post that it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to believe what you choose to believe, and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Hmm, interesting... I wonder if we can substitute 'gun' for something else here...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 16-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal automobile? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the car keys in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
Ha! This is fun...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 21-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal bottle of booze? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the liquor cabinet in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
K, that's all I've got (right now).
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
Slashdot Mirror
What an irony when politicians are talking about creating jobs. Economy is not about creating jobs, but about eliminating the need to work and rising the quality of life. This is the way to the future.
Perhaps; the problem is, with the approach our society is taking, the "rising quality of life" is no where to be found.
Also, OP's source was likely quoting after-tax income.
That calculation is bogus, starting with the fact that the poverty level for a family of 4 is $23000.
~$600 on a $20,000+ figure is within standard deviation.
In addition, people with that kind of income level qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, and numerous other programs.
... which they wouldn't need, if not impoverished. Also, don't be so sure - qualifications and program availability can vary from region to region.
The news report quantifies the US poverty level as a pair of statistics:
But it doesn't go on to describe the lifestyle of a person in that income group. I mean, suppose a person chooses to live without a car, a yearly vacation abroad, or the latest iDevice. Surely that person's poverty level would be different from a person who chooses to have a car, take yearly vacations abroad, and buy the latest iPhone?
Let's start with the individual:
Average rent:$650 x 12= $7800/yr
$11,139 - $7,800 housing cost = $3,339 left
Average monthly grocery bill for a single male age 19-50 (without malnourished oneself): $250 x 12 = $3,000 grocery cost
$3,339 - $3,000 = $339 left
Average utility bill for > 700 sq. ft. apartment: $150/mo x 12 = $1,800
$339 - $1,800 = -$1,461
Go ahead and double the rent/utils, quadruple the grocery cost for the family of 4.
Lifestyle has nothing to do with it.
What insightful commentary. Let me guess, chairman of the D/RNC?
Call me a troll or hater or whatever but please, when that same Russian man bought those illegal unmentioned stuff (I have not read TFA) from ebay, the us was just too happy to pocket the cash.
Heh, reminds me of something I heard on a Chris Rock standup rerun last night...
10G for a MAJORITY stake? No one can accuse you of being a greedy bastard, can they?
Greedy? Hardly - just not stupid with my money.
What's the real value of the company? Sales figures? Profits for the last 2 years? Is there even $10,000 worth of assets, so if the plan goes tits-up I can get my investment back?
See, these are the sort of questions people who aren't failures in life know to ask, before handing over 5-figure amounts to dumbfucks who are too lazy to get jobs and fund their own stupid idea (yea, I think it's a stupid idea to boot).
"Sure kid, you need money to get started in life? Fine, here's a few bucks, but I own everything you ever make in the future!"
Would you have preferred I just said, "Fuck you, earn your own money you lazy slacker, instead of panhandling for it online?"
Maybe try a smaller donation option, or better yet, just leave it for a better person to do.
Making downright stupid investments, for no actual return other than a handful of $2 t-shirts, is not what would qualify an individual as a "better person" than I... unless I've somehow fallen into an alternate dimension in which "better person" translates to "absolute fucking moron who deserves to be robbed blind."
To quote an old idiom, a fool and his money are soon parted. To quote a slightly less old one, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
That way I don't have to waste my life with free tech support.
If you honestly consider spending time with your grandmother, who is likely not long for this world, as "wasting your life," I feel really, really sorry for you, dude.
your granny, too.
Get of my lawn, maybe, but if I'm dropping $10,000 to help a startup I'd like to own part of the startup. Dropping $185 for early access to something that interests you makes some sense, but $10,000 just for a bunch of items and "prestige"? I could see if it was a charitable cause or something, but this...? Why?
Seconded.
You want 10 G's to start your "business?" fine, I'll trade you for a majority stake.
The whole world should slow down. Stick with a stable standard for a while. And relax.
This is probably the deepest, most profound statement on the internet today, if you take the time to really drink it in.
Meh.
Wake me when we start genetically engineering the little bastards.
i think the lack Capitalization and lack of Proper punctuation may be more Useful in Finding people suffering from Various Mental Disorders on the other hand it may merely Indicate a shortcoming In the posters education isn,t it obvious that when some one fails to Use punctuation and Capitalization correctly that they are a Tragedy in Waiting clearly the fbi is Onto Something or at least they Think They Are it cant be simply a case of people Being too lazy to punctuate their sentences or find the fucking shift key many messages on twitter come from mobile devices where it can be pretty damned inconvenient to apply capitals and punctuation marks as compared to a proper keyboard
What you did: it's there, and I see it.
boss, Your Honor, Mr. President, The Distinguished Senator/Representative...
Pick your poison.
Set your password to "fuck off".
Cop: "What's your password?" You: "Fuck off" Cop: "Perjury is a crime you know. What's your password?" You: "Seriously, fuck off"
Etc.
Pull an Abbott - make it "what"
And then they hold you in contempt of court until you turn it over.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/24/024233
So? I'm willing to fight for my freedom.
No, you wouldn't be "fighting", you'd be sitting in jail.
So? I'm willing to fight for AC's freedom.
That's what, supposedly, makes this a great nation - not our willingness to fight for our own rights, but our willingness to fight for the rights of others.
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
Not really - in all three scenarios, the bad outcome is almost always a direct result of insufficient education/training.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
Yea, sometimes, and sometimes the anti-gun people use equally-if-not-more ridiculous rationales for their position as well. No worries, though, I can tell from the fact your posts lack terms like 'gun nut' that you're not one of those types (or at least, it appears that way), I was merely pointing out the similarity for the sake of those reading our conversation.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days...
Not around these parts. Sure, they have the standard 'graduate license' BS, but in reality most kids in the city I currently reside in don't take their license exams here - they go to one of the little podunkt towns nearby, where the test consists of making a loop around the city square and parallel parking in front of the DMV. So, the result is a bunch of untrained (driver's ed is not a required course) young folks, who happen to think they're bullet proof, piloting 300 lb+ death machines in city traffic (or on the nearby interstate, fun fun) that they have zero experience with... needless to say, it's a recipe for disaster.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient?
Honestly, I've been reading the responses to your post (specifically calzones and dknoy's posts), and I like where they're taking it.
Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns
For those who have proven (to their fellow citizens, not the government) themselves to be proper stewards of the right, I think it should be easier to access all types of weapons and ordnance (yes, ordnance). I think this is where a lot of people make their mistake: they seem to think the government should be in the business of deciding who does and doesn't have access to the tools required to take the government down, should it become tyrannical, which completely defeats the purpose of our 2nd Amendment.
Aren't they also asking you to surrender your password and access codes for phones, laptops, etc., whenever you board a plane, and have now extended that to searches of a vehicle, and in fact, they can now force you to reveal your password without charging you with any crime. So then they compel you to surrender your identity and equipment... and then use your identity and equipment to pretend to be you, in order to do the same to others.
Agent Smith, you have competition.
ProTip: Police forces can only do what the citizenry allows them to do.
Of course, to change that trend would require a complete reversal of the status quo mentality of only being willing to defend the rights of those one agrees with.
Actually, it is not a crime to lie to the police, except in a sworn statement. In contrast, it is a crime to lie to a federal agent.
Question: What if the federal agent fails to identify themselves as such prior to the conversation?
I can hardly see a legal justification for lying to the feds, if you don't know they're feds beforehand... At least, in a non-police state.
> Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
You're assuming that everyone [with a gun] is capable of behaving rationally in an entirely irrational situation. you are pointing your gun at someone else just like the initial shooter is doing. Do you trust the person on the far side of the theater to know that you're not an accomplice?
Regarding this particular situation, the right thing to do would be to not draw, as the smoke permeating the darkened room would make identifying the target next to impossible, and as every shooter with half a brain knows (granted, that's not all of them), you never take a shot if you don't know what your shooting at, and what's behind it.
Concealed carry or not, the smart people are the one's who took cover and avoided shooting/getting shot.
> and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
And you are entitled to your opinion too (even if it is wrong)
The great thing about opinions is, their subjective nature prevents them from being right or wrong. How the opinion is expressed, however, can be decidedly so - i.e., referring to all concealed carry licensees as "whackjobs with guns" is likely the wrong way to express it (unless your intention is to make yourself appear an asshole).
The Supreme Court has been as thoroughly purchased as congress. Corporations are people. Money is speech. The court no longer serves the people any more than congress does.
So, essentially what you're saying is that the soap box, ballot box, and jury box have all failed to protect liberty?
Guess they aren't leaving us a lot of choice, are they?
On a seemingly (but not actually) unrelated note, it's been discovered that the bank HSBC has been laundering money for Mexican drug lords and Al Queda for quite some time now; How much would you be willing to bet that nobody goes to Gitmo, er, "jail" over this?
Promise you won't make jokes about them afterwards this time and maybe they'll agree.
What if we promise to only do it behind their backs?
Live Free and Fly!
Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.
Prior Art, Enjoy!
Not to mention, don't the vast majority of Texans live within the Constitution Free Zone? For claiming to have a "deep love of freedom," they sure do have funny ways of showing it...
Once you start shooting, how are the other whackjobs with guns (oops, my bias slipped out there) supposed to know whether you're one of the 'good guys' or not?
Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
'Course, I can tell from your initial post that it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to believe what you choose to believe, and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Hmm, interesting... I wonder if we can substitute 'gun' for something else here...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 16-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal automobile? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the car keys in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
Ha! This is fun...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 21-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal bottle of booze? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the liquor cabinet in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
K, that's all I've got (right now).
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.