If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
"Unnamed sources withing the Trump Administration" is not a valid attribution. Such as proven with the Comey Testimony before congress, where the "unnamed source" was flat out wrong. But since we don't know who that was, we can't discount that source as being bad source.
I realize that the News Media wants people on the inside, and don't want to reveal their sources, but that kind of crap is not reliable source material.
On the other hand, you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record, saying it wasn't the Russians or any state actor who got them the DNC documentation. Yet that is not a "valid source" because it wasn't the WAPO, NYT, CNN or MSNBC, who all relied on "Unnamed sources" inside the intelligence community.
So, by "Fake News" which fake news are you going to go with? The Russians Hacking the Election was "fake news" for well over a year, and there is even a special prosecutor tied to it. Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election, got caught colluding with foreign governments and yet that was never really reported.
There is plenty of fake news, both by Trump and the Democrats/media complex. If we ignore the fake news being spread by our side, we're nothing but a hypocrites. Fake news works, because it is easier to spread a lie than it is to counter with actual verified information.
Taxpayers don't ever see the money. You're under the false assumption that the government has a right to unrealized gains, under threat of government guns.
Unrealized gains are just... paper gains. They have no right until he cashes in the coins. And since they don't know which coins are his, and which ones aren't, I suspect that they don't have any way to actually get anything. Sucks for them.
If the supply of BitCoin in active circulation ever increased with the amount SN is supposed to have (guestimates) I would crash the market in no time flat.
Then there is the problem of "I don't remember where I put them" or "I forgot my key" or "I lost the wallet" or... any number of excuses he might have. And until he actually uses the BitCoins, they are unrealized gains and the government can't really touch them.
Why is everyone so pessimistic about everything Musk does?
People who think they know, but don't know, are the worst. You can't tell them they are wrong, but because they "know" everything needed to know, come to all the wrong conclusions. These are the people who will tell you you are wrong, what you're actually thinking and your full mental abilities, having read something on the internet about you. They know you better than you know yourself, having never met you.
They are pessimistic about Musk because he is actually doing what they said couldn't be done. Again. They are hoping he fails, because that will legitimize their own lack of initiative/drive.
You do realize that dictators lie, agree to things they have no intention of honoring. Right? Its kind of why they are dictators.
And when you realize that Iran is more of an existential threat due to the entire class of robed Imams trying to usher in the age of the Mahdi via nuclear war, it makes it something even worse that a psychopath (spoiled) man-child with a god complex.
We can contain North Korea, but we cannot contain people with suicidal tendencies.
I don't have a solution short of turning Iran into a glass table.
I'm glad. But you have to admit, many (most) liberals didn't really care because it was against Republicans, and now that Trump has the same tools available, they are apoplectic (and that is somehow Trumps fault). Hard to stay true when both sides are hypocritical.
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone, or when it was caught spying on Americans (multiple times) for political gain.
Sorry, but Libertarians are the ONLY ones calling out the hypocrisy of both the D and R parties, who use government to oppress their opponents.
My question is, why is the US government involved in business at all, pro / anti , corporate/worker ?
Because someone somewhere said... "There ought to be a law" and it was so. The next guy comes along, and does the same thing, and the next, and the next.
Meanwhile, nobody is stopping to ask "WHY should there be THAT law?" We're not problem solving any longer, we're legislating everything to our own peril.
Here is my greatest example: Net Neutrality.
On the surface, it sounds FANTASTIC! But why do we have the problem that we're trying to solve (it won't solve the problem) with legislation, when the actual root lies elsewhere. In Franchise Agreements that limit choice in last mile carriers. If the consumer had REAL choice, there would be no need for Net Neutrality laws, because the problem would be solved with competition. But it is easier to legislate the solution (which won't solve the problem, create additional headaches in the process) than it is to UNDO the government interference that caused the problem(Franchise Cable Agreements) in the first place.
The real solution isn't less choice and more restrictions, with End Users not really having a say in the matter, all in the name of fairness (it isn't fair at all) and dictates by governments on how businesses should operate. (see classical definition of Fascism for reference).
with employers doing everything they can to avoid hiring full time employees
And you blame businesses, rather than the government that created the rules the businesses are trying to navigate. And you wonder why it doesn't work? I can tell you that rose tinted view of the world doesn't make the world rose colored. I'm pretty damn sure that employers would LOVE to hire full time workers, but can save a shit ton of money (and stay in business) by avoiding the rule and regulations put in place that cost money. The option is, hire full time workers, become more expensive and go out of business, or cut hours and stay in business. Until you have a payroll, and responsibility to pay people a wage, you have no idea what it actually takes and the government rules put in place because... "there ought to be a law" and it was so.
People don't take Libertarians seriously, because straw-man arguments like you made;)
The relationship between taxes and quality of civilization is not necessarily a linear, positively-correlative relationship.
That wasn't my linear thought, that was the GP linear thought. S/He didn't properly apply bounds and did no sanity checks on their argument. I applied the logic of "taxes = civilization" to its logical conclusion based on no assumptions on my part;)
We have water, most of it drinkable, available. Very close to... 100% . Drinking fountains are convenience. Taxes are not a convenience, nor should taxes be nearly 100% . Wrong analogy. Nice try though.
To be a modern day first world nation, some amount of taxation is necessary and it must be compulsory.
Compulsion is slavery. There is a constitutional amendment against compulsory indentured servitude. And the fact that we haven't ever applied my view of taxation on a society, you can't actually say it won't work. My idea of taxes would mirror Cigarette Taxes. High tax rate, completely avoidable by everyone; voluntary. Lets legalize all sorts of things, tax the crap out of them, we gain two things by doing so, free people are free to do whatever, and the societal costs of those things are paid for by taxes, and we reduce prisons to actual criminals (Murder, theft, rape etc).
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark disprove your assertion. Taxes are not necessarily regressive. They are only regressive to the extent that government is incompetent and corrupt.
"This heavily progressive tax rate stunted economic growth, and Sweden fell from the fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years." http://thefederalist.com/2015/...
crony capitalism.
Fully agree there. But that isn't free enterprise, more fascist (true Italian kind) than anything. And for the biggest example you can look no further than ObamaCare, which is pure Fascist Healthcare, wrapped up in Crony Capitalism.
False. Because if that were the case, then more taxes = more civilization, which it doesn't.
The alternative is, Taxation is a necessary evil, and as such should be reduced or eliminated wherever possible, and should be voluntary (optional) not compelled under threat of government guns.
And, while we're talking taxes, how much is enough?
As for Macro/micro economics, I've passed both, and have a degree in Finance. Libertarian principles are about liberty, and taxes are about enslavement. For the record, I am not against taxes, as they are a necessary evil. I am opposed to confiscatory taxes to support government largess. The military (National Cause) can be well supported with minimal taxation rate. Most of the government isn't military, it is social programs and forced redistribution of wealth, which NEVER ends well, as more and more people are included in the dole, and less and less people actually pay for it.
Taxes, all of them, are regressive. Period. The rich can avoid them, the poor do not pay them, the middle class is stuck paying for them. Why do you see the disappearance of the middle class? Look no further than myopic socialist view of taxes being the center point of civilization.
How much is my data actually worth? Google has it, Facebook has it, and I'm pretty sure the government has all of that, and then some. Just about everyone out there has it that wants it.
My info is a commodity, and as such is only valuable in aggregate with other people's data.
I don't think you understand my actual position. A corporation is a legal entity (a "person") under the law, therefore if a criminal law has been broken, then we have the right to seek justice accordingly. The problem is, that in cases like that there is no way to lock up a corporation in Jail. But you can lock up the people responsible for overseeing the company (the CxO and Board) who are supposed to direct the corporation.
A committee shouldn't absolve those at the top from the course of action they were overseeing.
While I agree with the sentiments, you can't lock up an entire company's work force. Because everyone involved is only partially involved, and each individual could point to a thousand others that each contributed to boneheaded decisions, to the point that no one person is culpable.
The fix, is if this was "criminal" offense, would be to go after the CxO and Board of Directors and actually lock THEM up for the group think decisions of the company they are supposed to oversee. IF you actually started going after the top people, the culture underneath would change. Until that actually happens... don't expect any real changes.
No, you voted for this, when you signed up for Verizon. You have the complete ability to switch to any number of different providers, any time you want. Vote with your dollars, and leave government out of it.
Here is the thing, I like learning. I'm now in my 50's and still learning things daily. A lot of things, about a lot of topics. I am not really an expert in any one thing, but I do know a lot about a lot of different areas. Science, politics/law, computers/electronics, art, mechanics and so on.
I think what one knows is almost as important how deep. Broad knowledge over a wide range of areas allows one to see connections that others just can't see. I have a rare condition, and when I was told, I read everything I could on the subject. Everything. I'm not a doctor, but at least I can converse with my doctor, about my condition, and ask questions that need asking. Hell even knowing I don't know something, I can ask the question "Is there anything I should be asking, that I am not".
But learning, life long hard edge learning is the key. Most people stop learning, and just "do" whatever they know. I get that, it is comforting place to be satisfied. I just know I am not wired that way.
Well, considering that a large percentage of channels are nothing more than ads 24/7 for "Do you Poop Enough?". I mean how many shopping channels does one need, in addition to all the other channels that have infomercials running half the time.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
"Unnamed sources withing the Trump Administration" is not a valid attribution. Such as proven with the Comey Testimony before congress, where the "unnamed source" was flat out wrong. But since we don't know who that was, we can't discount that source as being bad source.
I realize that the News Media wants people on the inside, and don't want to reveal their sources, but that kind of crap is not reliable source material.
On the other hand, you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record, saying it wasn't the Russians or any state actor who got them the DNC documentation. Yet that is not a "valid source" because it wasn't the WAPO, NYT, CNN or MSNBC, who all relied on "Unnamed sources" inside the intelligence community.
So, by "Fake News" which fake news are you going to go with? The Russians Hacking the Election was "fake news" for well over a year, and there is even a special prosecutor tied to it. Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election, got caught colluding with foreign governments and yet that was never really reported.
There is plenty of fake news, both by Trump and the Democrats/media complex. If we ignore the fake news being spread by our side, we're nothing but a hypocrites. Fake news works, because it is easier to spread a lie than it is to counter with actual verified information.
Taxpayers don't ever see the money. You're under the false assumption that the government has a right to unrealized gains, under threat of government guns.
Thansk
Unrealized gains are just ... paper gains. They have no right until he cashes in the coins. And since they don't know which coins are his, and which ones aren't, I suspect that they don't have any way to actually get anything. Sucks for them.
Ha! Now we know your tricks, we're on to you! You cannot HIDE! MUhahahahaha
Supply/Demand Problems with your analysis.
If the supply of BitCoin in active circulation ever increased with the amount SN is supposed to have (guestimates) I would crash the market in no time flat.
Then there is the problem of "I don't remember where I put them" or "I forgot my key" or "I lost the wallet" or ... any number of excuses he might have. And until he actually uses the BitCoins, they are unrealized gains and the government can't really touch them.
Why is everyone so pessimistic about everything Musk does?
People who think they know, but don't know, are the worst. You can't tell them they are wrong, but because they "know" everything needed to know, come to all the wrong conclusions. These are the people who will tell you you are wrong, what you're actually thinking and your full mental abilities, having read something on the internet about you. They know you better than you know yourself, having never met you.
They are pessimistic about Musk because he is actually doing what they said couldn't be done. Again. They are hoping he fails, because that will legitimize their own lack of initiative/drive.
You do realize that dictators lie, agree to things they have no intention of honoring. Right? Its kind of why they are dictators.
And when you realize that Iran is more of an existential threat due to the entire class of robed Imams trying to usher in the age of the Mahdi via nuclear war, it makes it something even worse that a psychopath (spoiled) man-child with a god complex.
We can contain North Korea, but we cannot contain people with suicidal tendencies.
I don't have a solution short of turning Iran into a glass table.
Yup. Exactly. And clinton and bush, they all built upon the previous.
I'm glad. But you have to admit, many (most) liberals didn't really care because it was against Republicans, and now that Trump has the same tools available, they are apoplectic (and that is somehow Trumps fault). Hard to stay true when both sides are hypocritical.
Liberals didn't complain when Obama Administration lied about tapping data of every cell phone, or when it was caught spying on Americans (multiple times) for political gain.
Sorry, but Libertarians are the ONLY ones calling out the hypocrisy of both the D and R parties, who use government to oppress their opponents.
My question is, why is the US government involved in business at all, pro / anti , corporate/worker ?
Because someone somewhere said ... "There ought to be a law" and it was so. The next guy comes along, and does the same thing, and the next, and the next.
Meanwhile, nobody is stopping to ask "WHY should there be THAT law?" We're not problem solving any longer, we're legislating everything to our own peril.
Here is my greatest example: Net Neutrality.
On the surface, it sounds FANTASTIC! But why do we have the problem that we're trying to solve (it won't solve the problem) with legislation, when the actual root lies elsewhere. In Franchise Agreements that limit choice in last mile carriers. If the consumer had REAL choice, there would be no need for Net Neutrality laws, because the problem would be solved with competition. But it is easier to legislate the solution (which won't solve the problem, create additional headaches in the process) than it is to UNDO the government interference that caused the problem(Franchise Cable Agreements) in the first place.
The real solution isn't less choice and more restrictions, with End Users not really having a say in the matter, all in the name of fairness (it isn't fair at all) and dictates by governments on how businesses should operate. (see classical definition of Fascism for reference).
with employers doing everything they can to avoid hiring full time employees
And you blame businesses, rather than the government that created the rules the businesses are trying to navigate. And you wonder why it doesn't work? I can tell you that rose tinted view of the world doesn't make the world rose colored. I'm pretty damn sure that employers would LOVE to hire full time workers, but can save a shit ton of money (and stay in business) by avoiding the rule and regulations put in place that cost money. The option is, hire full time workers, become more expensive and go out of business, or cut hours and stay in business. Until you have a payroll, and responsibility to pay people a wage, you have no idea what it actually takes and the government rules put in place because ... "there ought to be a law" and it was so.
People don't take Libertarians seriously, because straw-man arguments like you made ;)
The relationship between taxes and quality of civilization is not necessarily a linear, positively-correlative relationship.
That wasn't my linear thought, that was the GP linear thought. S/He didn't properly apply bounds and did no sanity checks on their argument. I applied the logic of "taxes = civilization" to its logical conclusion based on no assumptions on my part ;)
We have water, most of it drinkable, available. Very close to ... 100% . Drinking fountains are convenience. Taxes are not a convenience, nor should taxes be nearly 100% . Wrong analogy. Nice try though.
To be a modern day first world nation, some amount of taxation is necessary and it must be compulsory.
Compulsion is slavery. There is a constitutional amendment against compulsory indentured servitude. And the fact that we haven't ever applied my view of taxation on a society, you can't actually say it won't work. My idea of taxes would mirror Cigarette Taxes. High tax rate, completely avoidable by everyone; voluntary. Lets legalize all sorts of things, tax the crap out of them, we gain two things by doing so, free people are free to do whatever, and the societal costs of those things are paid for by taxes, and we reduce prisons to actual criminals (Murder, theft, rape etc).
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark disprove your assertion. Taxes are not necessarily regressive. They are only regressive to the extent that government is incompetent and corrupt.
"This heavily progressive tax rate stunted economic growth, and Sweden fell from the fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years." http://thefederalist.com/2015/...
crony capitalism.
Fully agree there. But that isn't free enterprise, more fascist (true Italian kind) than anything. And for the biggest example you can look no further than ObamaCare, which is pure Fascist Healthcare, wrapped up in Crony Capitalism.
Taxation is the price of having civilization.
False. Because if that were the case, then more taxes = more civilization, which it doesn't.
The alternative is, Taxation is a necessary evil, and as such should be reduced or eliminated wherever possible, and should be voluntary (optional) not compelled under threat of government guns.
And, while we're talking taxes, how much is enough?
As for Macro/micro economics, I've passed both, and have a degree in Finance. Libertarian principles are about liberty, and taxes are about enslavement. For the record, I am not against taxes, as they are a necessary evil. I am opposed to confiscatory taxes to support government largess. The military (National Cause) can be well supported with minimal taxation rate. Most of the government isn't military, it is social programs and forced redistribution of wealth, which NEVER ends well, as more and more people are included in the dole, and less and less people actually pay for it.
Taxes, all of them, are regressive. Period. The rich can avoid them, the poor do not pay them, the middle class is stuck paying for them. Why do you see the disappearance of the middle class? Look no further than myopic socialist view of taxes being the center point of civilization.
North Korea is a socialist paradise.
Two can play the game of strawman! WOOT
How much is my data actually worth? Google has it, Facebook has it, and I'm pretty sure the government has all of that, and then some. Just about everyone out there has it that wants it.
My info is a commodity, and as such is only valuable in aggregate with other people's data.
I don't think you understand my actual position. A corporation is a legal entity (a "person") under the law, therefore if a criminal law has been broken, then we have the right to seek justice accordingly. The problem is, that in cases like that there is no way to lock up a corporation in Jail. But you can lock up the people responsible for overseeing the company (the CxO and Board) who are supposed to direct the corporation.
A committee shouldn't absolve those at the top from the course of action they were overseeing.
While I agree with the sentiments, you can't lock up an entire company's work force. Because everyone involved is only partially involved, and each individual could point to a thousand others that each contributed to boneheaded decisions, to the point that no one person is culpable.
The fix, is if this was "criminal" offense, would be to go after the CxO and Board of Directors and actually lock THEM up for the group think decisions of the company they are supposed to oversee. IF you actually started going after the top people, the culture underneath would change. Until that actually happens ... don't expect any real changes.
Breach of contract. Easy fix. Walk it, ask for your money back.
No, you voted for this, when you signed up for Verizon. You have the complete ability to switch to any number of different providers, any time you want. Vote with your dollars, and leave government out of it.
Here is the thing, I like learning. I'm now in my 50's and still learning things daily. A lot of things, about a lot of topics. I am not really an expert in any one thing, but I do know a lot about a lot of different areas. Science, politics/law, computers/electronics, art, mechanics and so on.
I think what one knows is almost as important how deep. Broad knowledge over a wide range of areas allows one to see connections that others just can't see. I have a rare condition, and when I was told, I read everything I could on the subject. Everything. I'm not a doctor, but at least I can converse with my doctor, about my condition, and ask questions that need asking. Hell even knowing I don't know something, I can ask the question "Is there anything I should be asking, that I am not".
But learning, life long hard edge learning is the key. Most people stop learning, and just "do" whatever they know. I get that, it is comforting place to be satisfied. I just know I am not wired that way.
Well, considering that a large percentage of channels are nothing more than ads 24/7 for "Do you Poop Enough?". I mean how many shopping channels does one need, in addition to all the other channels that have infomercials running half the time.
I just wish i could http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/ my TV lineup.
Bing
Is
Not
Google
Not exactly what I meant, but I understand. A mechanical reproduction is not creative. The creativity is in the programming.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...
Bing
Is
Not
Google.
I rest my case.