So, you can't save for the future which means you will have no money when you are too old to work or hard times come. The only choice is to rely on others to take care of you. All personal responsibility is gone and you are a slave to your government. This sort of thing used to happen back in the day in the States but it was private companies running company towns where the company owned everything and made sure you were always in debt to the company. (Your statement about having to buy on credit fits right in). The big difference besides private company versus government doing it. We, as a people in the States, said the practice was immoral, unethical and illegal because it was essentially a form of slavery. But I guess slavery is okay as long as the few at the top of the government are the owners cause government never abuses its people.
Why? To justify the expense, it is incumbent upon those wanting the change to convince the rest of us that it is necessary*, that it will prevent some kind of harm or something.
* Being like the rest of the world is not a necessity; it is a desire.
Which states put a marker every tenth of a mile? Admittedly, I haven't driving in every state but the only ones putting signs more frequently than every mile that I've noticed are Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois. Missouri and Arkansas had them every two-tenths on some interstates but not all. Illinois has them every half-mile on the toll roads but not elsewhere that I've noticed.
My reaction to your wife complaining about not integrating easily into "American" life. She chose to come here so suck it up. I haven't heard of any other countries accommodating my desire to not have to learn their system when I travel. Would they be anymore likely to accommodate me if I moved there?
Why is it that "the world" seems to complain about Americans always expecting things to be American everywhere else but they fail to see themselves complaining that in America everything isn't like the rest of the world?
As for dividing into five parts instead of four? Why? Just use four and serve slightly larger portions.
Well, since I live in the US and I say pound, I mean the one that is registering on the scale at the grocery store or the floor of my bathroom.
When I say ounce, I mean the ones that are on my measuring cup or possibly the ones that are also on the grocer's scale.
Pints are two cups = half a quart. I don't drink but I have been to a few bars in the States and I don't think the sell beer by the pint over here so that is another distinction not to worry about.
When I've traveled outside the States, I go with whatever units they are using.
Australia already has pretty much banned all handguns from the general population. Why do they need a law banning a very small subset of them? Is it maybe because politicians like to be seen "do something" and the general public is extremely gullible?
Kind of like having a law that says "No red cars allowed" when only 4-door cars exist and then somebody starts making 2-door cars so we pass another that says "No red 2-door cars either." Isn't that just a redundant law that wasted time, energy, money, trees, etc. to pass and print?
Yes, one could make a fairly persuasive argument that it would be "easier" for most people to rationalize that killing cleanly from a distance is more palatable than killing closeup and messy. However, that is beside the point because most (as in 95+%) of gun violence (outside of war zones and such) is committed at close range.
As for homicide rates... they aren't even comparable form country to country because it has been shown that each country reports differently. Further, the areas with the lowest homicide rates within the US are the areas with the least restrictive gun laws and the highest rates of legal gun ownership. To me, that disproves even a correlation between the availability of guns and a tendency to use them violently and incorrectly. Without correlation, there is no need to even look for causation.
Another negative correlation is the fact that the number of guns in the US is always increasing and is much higher now than a few decades ago. However, the violent crime rate in general and the violent crime rate using guns has been dropping steadily for the past few decades and is something like one-fourth of where it was 30 - 50 years ago.
In what way is the "religious lobby" preventing you from giving out birth control to people in third world countries? They may be preventing certain governments from using tax revenue (or more accurately, borrowed money) to do so but I have not heard of a single law preventing private organizations from using privately donated money from doing so.
I think your problem is that you have your head so far up your leftwing ass, that you cannot even imagine that things get done without the government doing them.
Some guns are designed to be able to be used to more effectively kill but some guns are designed around being able to shoot at paper targets very accurately. Granted such guns could be used to kill but seldom are because they are too clumsy to use for such purposes or they are too small a caliber to serve that purpose.
If Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes he could, he could declare his investment income as regular income or he could simply overpay every year. He doesn't because he doesn't really want to. He is smart enough to realize that taxing the income of the 1%er at 100% won't solve the spending issues in DC. He also knows that every time we raise taxes on "the wealthy" everybody gets included as well.
And by "instruction", do you mean faculty salary or faculty and staff salary? Are benefits included? Is that covering the pensions of retired faculty and staff? Those pension benefits frequently get lumped in with teacher pay but it is most definitely not helping little Johnny learn anything today. So I think you are blinidng yourself as to the necessity of the tax increase.
My observation during the past decade in the US is that those clamoring for higher taxation generally fall into 3 categories: 1) Already so wealthy that higher income taxes won't hurt a bit-this group is also usually very dishonest about the situation; 2) already taking more out than they are putting in so higher taxes won't affect them one bit - you called them freeloaders; 3) those who will get hurt but believe that the increase will only affect group 1 and then can't figure out why it also affect themselves.
Group 1 is where Warren Buffet sits and is proud to say that he supports increases on income taxes and proclaims that he won't mind paying more in income taxes. Of course he won't. He can live the rest of his life with no income and not change his lifestyle at all.
Whatever. If the kid is responsible enough to send out alone in the woods to bring back a deer then he is certainly responsible to be left home watching TV and not use the gun for anything.
Since driving does involve a huge set of skills that cannot be fully learned without practice, raising the driving age will only have the effect of pushing the high accident rate group to still be the first age group allowed to drive. Anyone who wants to quote some statistics showing how Europeans in the 18-21 years group have lower accident rates than the US 16-18, has to show that they have successfully not included anyone in the European group who had their scooter license at 14 and their small engine ( 500 cc) motorcycle at 16. Most of Europe is letting kids learn to negotiate traffic at a younger age than in the US but most Americans don't realize that.
Using a hands free cellphone impairs my ability to drive such that I am less able than a dead person. I doubt that since I can at least press the pedals.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you can't save for the future which means you will have no money when you are too old to work or hard times come. The only choice is to rely on others to take care of you. All personal responsibility is gone and you are a slave to your government. This sort of thing used to happen back in the day in the States but it was private companies running company towns where the company owned everything and made sure you were always in debt to the company. (Your statement about having to buy on credit fits right in). The big difference besides private company versus government doing it. We, as a people in the States, said the practice was immoral, unethical and illegal because it was essentially a form of slavery. But I guess slavery is okay as long as the few at the top of the government are the owners cause government never abuses its people.
"not going towards fascism/socialism/communism" A rose by any other name...
Currency control... done (just with higher limits)
Printing money like crazy... done.
Price controls... started with rent, then health care
Looks like Obama has us moving in that direction.
Yes, currency export restrictions greatly preceded Obama but his "brothers in ideology" are behind all the rent control policies.
So, if 12.5 to 25 is a much larger savings than 25 to 50, why are we busting our humps to get from 35 to 40?
I'm not doubting your math, just wondering why we argue so much about so little.
So? Maybe he wanted to know how many roadside toilets he was passing every mile.
Why? To justify the expense, it is incumbent upon those wanting the change to convince the rest of us that it is necessary*, that it will prevent some kind of harm or something.
* Being like the rest of the world is not a necessity; it is a desire.
Which states put a marker every tenth of a mile? Admittedly, I haven't driving in every state but the only ones putting signs more frequently than every mile that I've noticed are Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois. Missouri and Arkansas had them every two-tenths on some interstates but not all. Illinois has them every half-mile on the toll roads but not elsewhere that I've noticed.
My reaction to your wife complaining about not integrating easily into "American" life. She chose to come here so suck it up. I haven't heard of any other countries accommodating my desire to not have to learn their system when I travel. Would they be anymore likely to accommodate me if I moved there?
Why is it that "the world" seems to complain about Americans always expecting things to be American everywhere else but they fail to see themselves complaining that in America everything isn't like the rest of the world?
As for dividing into five parts instead of four? Why? Just use four and serve slightly larger portions.
Well, since I live in the US and I say pound, I mean the one that is registering on the scale at the grocery store or the floor of my bathroom.
When I say ounce, I mean the ones that are on my measuring cup or possibly the ones that are also on the grocer's scale.
Pints are two cups = half a quart. I don't drink but I have been to a few bars in the States and I don't think the sell beer by the pint over here so that is another distinction not to worry about.
When I've traveled outside the States, I go with whatever units they are using.
Why worry about it at all? If you grew up here in the States and still get confused about our system, then you have some serious cognitive issues.
If you are a visitor, then learn to adapt. You aren't posting any non-metric signs for our benefit so don't complain that we are any less obliging.
If you were born elsewhere and are having problems learning our system... well that's a similar situation as the visitor isn't it.
Like 273.15 is a better number than 32.
Australia already has pretty much banned all handguns from the general population. Why do they need a law banning a very small subset of them? Is it maybe because politicians like to be seen "do something" and the general public is extremely gullible?
Kind of like having a law that says "No red cars allowed" when only 4-door cars exist and then somebody starts making 2-door cars so we pass another that says "No red 2-door cars either." Isn't that just a redundant law that wasted time, energy, money, trees, etc. to pass and print?
Yes, one could make a fairly persuasive argument that it would be "easier" for most people to rationalize that killing cleanly from a distance is more palatable than killing closeup and messy. However, that is beside the point because most (as in 95+%) of gun violence (outside of war zones and such) is committed at close range.
As for homicide rates... they aren't even comparable form country to country because it has been shown that each country reports differently. Further, the areas with the lowest homicide rates within the US are the areas with the least restrictive gun laws and the highest rates of legal gun ownership. To me, that disproves even a correlation between the availability of guns and a tendency to use them violently and incorrectly. Without correlation, there is no need to even look for causation.
Another negative correlation is the fact that the number of guns in the US is always increasing and is much higher now than a few decades ago. However, the violent crime rate in general and the violent crime rate using guns has been dropping steadily for the past few decades and is something like one-fourth of where it was 30 - 50 years ago.
You agree by pointing out that he is wrong? You two are prime examples of gun-banners having no reasoning skills.
In what way is the "religious lobby" preventing you from giving out birth control to people in third world countries? They may be preventing certain governments from using tax revenue (or more accurately, borrowed money) to do so but I have not heard of a single law preventing private organizations from using privately donated money from doing so.
I think your problem is that you have your head so far up your leftwing ass, that you cannot even imagine that things get done without the government doing them.
Don't be injecting facts into a discussion about gun control. The 'fraid of my own shadow crowd doesn't like facts.
Some guns are designed to be able to be used to more effectively kill but some guns are designed around being able to shoot at paper targets very accurately. Granted such guns could be used to kill but seldom are because they are too clumsy to use for such purposes or they are too small a caliber to serve that purpose.
If Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes he could, he could declare his investment income as regular income or he could simply overpay every year. He doesn't because he doesn't really want to. He is smart enough to realize that taxing the income of the 1%er at 100% won't solve the spending issues in DC. He also knows that every time we raise taxes on "the wealthy" everybody gets included as well.
And by "instruction", do you mean faculty salary or faculty and staff salary? Are benefits included? Is that covering the pensions of retired faculty and staff? Those pension benefits frequently get lumped in with teacher pay but it is most definitely not helping little Johnny learn anything today. So I think you are blinidng yourself as to the necessity of the tax increase.
My observation during the past decade in the US is that those clamoring for higher taxation generally fall into 3 categories: 1) Already so wealthy that higher income taxes won't hurt a bit-this group is also usually very dishonest about the situation; 2) already taking more out than they are putting in so higher taxes won't affect them one bit - you called them freeloaders; 3) those who will get hurt but believe that the increase will only affect group 1 and then can't figure out why it also affect themselves.
Group 1 is where Warren Buffet sits and is proud to say that he supports increases on income taxes and proclaims that he won't mind paying more in income taxes. Of course he won't. He can live the rest of his life with no income and not change his lifestyle at all.
I actually agree with that someone for the most part. The limiting factor will always be the cost of such weapons.
So I should allow them to be further eroded? What an idiotic line of reasoning.
Whatever. If the kid is responsible enough to send out alone in the woods to bring back a deer then he is certainly responsible to be left home watching TV and not use the gun for anything.
No, because you shouldn't limit my rights just because someone else can't handle them.
Also, such evidence does not exist.
Japan has a suicide rate equal to or greater than the US with almost no guns in the hands of private citizens.
Since driving does involve a huge set of skills that cannot be fully learned without practice, raising the driving age will only have the effect of pushing the high accident rate group to still be the first age group allowed to drive. Anyone who wants to quote some statistics showing how Europeans in the 18-21 years group have lower accident rates than the US 16-18, has to show that they have successfully not included anyone in the European group who had their scooter license at 14 and their small engine ( 500 cc) motorcycle at 16. Most of Europe is letting kids learn to negotiate traffic at a younger age than in the US but most Americans don't realize that.
Using a hands free cellphone impairs my ability to drive such that I am less able than a dead person. I doubt that since I can at least press the pedals.