Why don't you stick it to the man and demand that everyone gets $100.00 / hr. That'll show them.
/sarc
Here's the f**king problem - reformulating the minimum wage to being a "living" wage hurts those with a low skill set.
Part of keeping a job is
- showing up every day
- showing up on time every day
- showing the will to this day in and day, week in and week out
- being clean and reasonably well groomed
- following directions
- being personable
You may take these "skills" for granted but they need to be developed. This is one of the invaluable benefits of minimum wage jobs. It's the first rung on the ladder. It's not meant, nor intended to be, a role that one can have to support ones family. It's the f**king MINIMUM.
Whether the intent is discriminatory or not is not the issue.
The Constitutional question is simple - does the President have the authority?
Nothing more. Nothing less. The answer was obvious from the beginning. Those bringing other things (such as discrimination) were just bringing it up to inflame the uninformed. Intent Not intending to start a flame war or insult you. But it's clear. So clear that it was a 9-0 decision.
Then you should laugh at gun control people who play the bait and switch, talking about crime and mass murder and then say that the US has 30,000+ gun deaths per year. Ooops 2/3 of that are suicides.
Now, if the US had a higher suicide rate than Japan, or Taiwan, or France or England or Germany then, and only then, it may make sense to include those numbers. But the US doesn't have a higher suicide rate therefore this is an example of gun control advocates LYING.
And, if you break this down further, you'll find that it's only parts of those counties accounts for the violence
Third point - there is no correlation between more guns in a state and more gun violence.
- US counties with high guns per capita have violence rates equal to bucolic countryside European towns.
- As guns became easier to get in Florida (and other states) gun violence went down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
- As guns became more numerous in the US gun violence has gone down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
Fourth point - Gun control people are not focusing on people who use guns while committing a crime. They are focusing on gun ownership. Rifles are always their target and yet they used in 5% of the gun crimes.
More deaths are done with knives than rifles. (See below - from US Statistical Abstract)
More deaths are caused by hammers and other blunt objects than by rifles.(See below)
More deaths are caused by fists and feet than by rifles. (See below)
You think investors, their attorneys, their accountants, wouldn't be able to tell if the property is "obviously inflated?"
You pretend you're insightful but don't realize you just insulted 1000s of Chinese investors (who are not necessarily stupid), their attorneys and their accountants.
Hmmm. If I was a prog this would the time I would yell: RACIST
Legal precedence allows California to expand upon Federal EPA standards.
At issue is whether or not something is a Federal or State issue issue. And it's a complicated issue, further complicated by both sides willing to push the envelope into, what seems to me clearly, contravening the US Constitution.
Example of states overreaching : sanctuary cities and non-compliance with Federal immigration law.
Example of the Federal govt overreaching: enforcing federal marijuana law in states that legalized growing and possession.
Take a look at the total wealth and see if you get to 2 trillion dollars. Then ask yourself how many months the US government will run on that confiscated money.
Here's something you need to realize - higher taxes != more tax revenue.
Saying "Stupid Rednecks" refer to a particular race in a particular geographical location just as saying "Stupid Ghetto Kids" refers to a particular race in a particular geographical location.
If saying "Stupid Ghetto" is racist then so is saying "Stupid Redneck"
If one person says Trumps supporters are "Stupid Rednecks" then it's equal to saying Obama's supporters were "Stupid Ghetto..."
College is over priced because it gets money pumped into it for useless classes; every changing textbooks.
You can cut the cost of college by getting rid of the useless fluff and the extracurricular activities that you pay for.
No money should go to athletics from the general fund. (As for example)
No money should to clubs of any kind from the general fund.
Take a look at the "support" staff for colleges and compare them to the 1950s. Hmmm. That costs money.
Get rid of remedial education in colleges. Pass the muthaf**king skill tests before you get admitted. If you were a bad high school student then you need to go take remedial classes elsewhere. (So that expense still exists but is part of the general budget. For society as a whole that is not a savings.)
Cutting taxes is not giving. And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.
You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)
So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.
Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?
Well,
If the company employs people and make a profit then they pay taxes. And, AFAIK, the data is not being used by spam merchants but by companies trying to do analysis on geographical areas.
Area A buys this stuff at this rate as opposed to Area B.
Or making psychometric analysis through search analysis, comparing to buying patterns, etc.. to get a grasp about whether Area A or Area B is the best place to open up a new Whole Foods or whatever.
Regulating interstate commerce is in the purview of the Federal Government. I would agree that the Congress DOES have the authority. But it doesn't mean it should (as oppose to leave it to the states). Now, in this case, I do think it ought to be decided on the Federal issue.
However, there is no reason that states cannot decide for themselves whether or not to increase the level of privacy protection for their citizens.
Except not everything should be on the Federal level. I think a good argument exists for this issue to be Federal and would argue that it ought to be Federal but it is not a stupid response.
You need to start thinking about how powerful you want the Federal Government to be. Are you scared of what the Trump administration can do? If so then you ought to consider curtailing the power of the federal government - and you ought to also be cognizant that others were just as scared of the Obama administration as you are of the Trump.
What does that mean in this case? Stop having a knee-jerk reaction that everything ought to be decided at the Federal level. Even in cases where you think the Federal level is better it may, perhaps, be better for it to be state level.
We need to reduce the power of Imperial Washington.
Unions are not bad. People joining together in self-interest not bad. It's what they do that is bad or good.
Union corruption is bad.
Union inflexibility is bad.
Of course you realize that small government, free market types consider Obama / Jill Stein supporters to be part of the so-called "clueless electorate."
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you stick it to the man and demand that everyone gets $100.00 / hr. That'll show them.
/sarc
Here's the f**king problem - reformulating the minimum wage to being a "living" wage hurts those with a low skill set.
Part of keeping a job is
- showing up every day
- showing up on time every day
- showing the will to this day in and day, week in and week out
- being clean and reasonably well groomed
- following directions
- being personable
You may take these "skills" for granted but they need to be developed. This is one of the invaluable benefits of minimum wage jobs. It's the first rung on the ladder. It's not meant, nor intended to be, a role that one can have to support ones family. It's the f**king MINIMUM.
Rolling over losses is legitimate. It's not even remotely shady. Do you have any idea about what you're talking about?
Now you're purposely misunderstanding the issue.
This applies to immigration officials. It DOES NOT limit the powers granted the president and it's utter foolishness to pretend that it does.
Whether the intent is discriminatory or not is not the issue.
The Constitutional question is simple - does the President have the authority?
Nothing more. Nothing less. The answer was obvious from the beginning. Those bringing other things (such as discrimination) were just bringing it up to inflame the uninformed. Intent Not intending to start a flame war or insult you. But it's clear. So clear that it was a 9-0 decision.
The issue is this - is this EO within the scope of powers granted to the President of the United States.
YES.
It's been so since the beginning and NEVER overruled.
Then you should laugh at gun control people who play the bait and switch, talking about crime and mass murder and then say that the US has 30,000+ gun deaths per year. Ooops 2/3 of that are suicides.
.411 445 375 352 ..485 522 444 424 ..1,782 1,920 1,897 1,836 .9 2 10 2 .134 125 86 98
Now, if the US had a higher suicide rate than Japan, or Taiwan, or France or England or Germany then, and only then, it may make sense to include those numbers. But the US doesn't have a higher suicide rate therefore this is an example of gun control advocates LYING.
Second point - 2% of the US counties are responsible for over 1/2 of the gun violence in the US
https://crimeresearch.org/2017...
And, if you break this down further, you'll find that it's only parts of those counties accounts for the violence Third point - there is no correlation between more guns in a state and more gun violence.
- US counties with high guns per capita have violence rates equal to bucolic countryside European towns.
- As guns became easier to get in Florida (and other states) gun violence went down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
- As guns became more numerous in the US gun violence has gone down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
Fourth point - Gun control people are not focusing on people who use guns while committing a crime. They are focusing on gun ownership. Rifles are always their target and yet they used in 5% of the gun crimes.
More deaths are done with knives than rifles. (See below - from US Statistical Abstract)
More deaths are caused by hammers and other blunt objects than by rifles.(See below)
More deaths are caused by fists and feet than by rifles. (See below)
Characteristic 2000 2005 2008 2009
Total firearms. . . . . . 8,661 10,158 9,484 9,203
Handguns. . . . . . . 6,778 7,565 6,755 6,503
Rifles. . . . . . . . . .
Shotguns. . . . . .
Other not specified or type unknown. . . . . . 53 138 79 96 Firearms,
type not stated. . . 934 1,488 1,831 1,828
Knives or cutting instruments. . . . .
Blunt objects 1. . . . . . 617 608 614 623
Personal weapons 2. . 927 905 861 815
Poison. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 7
Explosives. . . . . .
Fire. . . . . . . . . . .
These are not "alt-facts"
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...
https://www.census.gov/prod/20...
Obviously inflated? This idiocy again?
You think investors, their attorneys, their accountants, wouldn't be able to tell if the property is "obviously inflated?"
You pretend you're insightful but don't realize you just insulted 1000s of Chinese investors (who are not necessarily stupid), their attorneys and their accountants.
Hmmm. If I was a prog this would the time I would yell: RACIST
Legal precedence allows California to expand upon Federal EPA standards.
At issue is whether or not something is a Federal or State issue issue. And it's a complicated issue, further complicated by both sides willing to push the envelope into, what seems to me clearly, contravening the US Constitution.
Example of states overreaching : sanctuary cities and non-compliance with Federal immigration law.
Example of the Federal govt overreaching: enforcing federal marijuana law in states that legalized growing and possession.
Take a look at the total wealth and see if you get to 2 trillion dollars. Then ask yourself how many months the US government will run on that confiscated money.
Here's something you need to realize - higher taxes != more tax revenue.
Saying "Stupid Rednecks" refer to a particular race in a particular geographical location just as saying "Stupid Ghetto Kids" refers to a particular race in a particular geographical location.
..."
If saying "Stupid Ghetto" is racist then so is saying "Stupid Redneck"
If one person says Trumps supporters are "Stupid Rednecks" then it's equal to saying Obama's supporters were "Stupid Ghetto
College is over priced because it gets money pumped into it for useless classes; every changing textbooks.
You can cut the cost of college by getting rid of the useless fluff and the extracurricular activities that you pay for.
No money should go to athletics from the general fund. (As for example)
No money should to clubs of any kind from the general fund.
Take a look at the "support" staff for colleges and compare them to the 1950s. Hmmm. That costs money. Get rid of remedial education in colleges. Pass the muthaf**king skill tests before you get admitted. If you were a bad high school student then you need to go take remedial classes elsewhere. (So that expense still exists but is part of the general budget. For society as a whole that is not a savings.)
Of and buy the people doesn't mean the government takes from some to give to others now does it?
No handing of money here. You're buying a service.
Oh, you're talking about government enforced monopolies, you think they're bad. Libertarians and free-market types agree with you.
Be prepared to be further disappointed if you're outraged at Ted Cruz. Time for you to move to Canada.
Re entitlements - hmmm. You really think they're being slashed? Really?
You could be creating your heaven in your state. Taxing higher, more entitlements. Instead you're trying to make it country wide.
Prove me wrong. Make it work in your state. Then, instead of fighting you, I'll join you.
Simple solution to all the FUD and BS
Flat tax (or extremely limited deductions) on earned income.
Cutting taxes is not giving. And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.
You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)
So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.
Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?
"giving?"
You're giving money away? Can I have some?
I've never given money to Amazon. I've bought things from them, but never gave them any money?
I wonder? Why are people giving so much money away?
Well, If the company employs people and make a profit then they pay taxes. And, AFAIK, the data is not being used by spam merchants but by companies trying to do analysis on geographical areas.
Area A buys this stuff at this rate as opposed to Area B.
Or making psychometric analysis through search analysis, comparing to buying patterns, etc.. to get a grasp about whether Area A or Area B is the best place to open up a new Whole Foods or whatever.
Regulating interstate commerce is in the purview of the Federal Government. I would agree that the Congress DOES have the authority. But it doesn't mean it should (as oppose to leave it to the states). Now, in this case, I do think it ought to be decided on the Federal issue.
However, there is no reason that states cannot decide for themselves whether or not to increase the level of privacy protection for their citizens.
Except not everything should be on the Federal level. I think a good argument exists for this issue to be Federal and would argue that it ought to be Federal but it is not a stupid response.
You need to start thinking about how powerful you want the Federal Government to be. Are you scared of what the Trump administration can do? If so then you ought to consider curtailing the power of the federal government - and you ought to also be cognizant that others were just as scared of the Obama administration as you are of the Trump.
What does that mean in this case? Stop having a knee-jerk reaction that everything ought to be decided at the Federal level. Even in cases where you think the Federal level is better it may, perhaps, be better for it to be state level.
We need to reduce the power of Imperial Washington.
Your argument is flawed.
Unions are not bad. People joining together in self-interest not bad. It's what they do that is bad or good.
Union corruption is bad.
Union inflexibility is bad.
Of course you realize that small government, free market types consider Obama / Jill Stein supporters to be part of the so-called "clueless electorate."
Negatively stereotyping X is the definition of racism. (Especially the current day expansion of racism)
The list given was of things he promised to do.
You and I may not like some, or all, of those things. That is irrelevant. They were promises kept.
Yes.
His supporters are pleased, And he didn't simply appoint judges - he appointed small-gov't, free market supporting judges.