The point was that he was in a permit-requiring area. Getting permits to work on live trees is a hassle, but for dead ones its expedited because of the fall danger.
It's a combination of more aggressive measurement, and broadening of the definition (Autism used to be a peer of Asperger's for example, but is now the container diagnosis for both).
I think the evidence favors the liberal viewpoint: during that entire 30 years, the distribution of wealth has gotten nothing but worse, every single year. Why shouldn't the liberals still be favoring expansion of government given that very basic fact?
Have you looked at the plugins for firefox vs any other browser? Compare them, and the number of features for other browsers is pretty much approaching zero.
Because the current government isn't doing enough to balance the social injustice created by poorly constrained capitalism. Workers in this country are creating enormous amounts of wealth, almost all of which is winding up in the hands of a tiny number of people. Government needs only be large enough to redress that fundamental unfairness.
The liberal bias of reality comes from liberals embracing science while conservatives reject it. Evolution is probably the most visible example. It's happening all around us, but conservatives reject it. Thus, reality is biased toward the liberal.
I don't think empirical evidence shows that at all. Most of the government spending on social programs goes to retirement for the elderly and health care for the elderly. There are places where we could do that with less waste (if the Republicans would let us!), but fundamentally most of that money is going to very reasonable things.
You realize that the fact that we're all chained to pump prices is precisely because we haven't gone down the liberal economic path, right?
And that the deficit problem was largely brought on by the previous administration. The current one is trying to reverse that, and may just be beginning to turn the corner on that.
That's an extremist viewpoint that reflects the real political views of very few fiscal conservatives or social liberals. Most people actually want the smallest effective government they can get. Very few want 0% or 100%. The people who want 15% government should join the party currently dominated by 30% government and work to shift closer to 15%. They shouldn't join the party of oppressing homosexuals because of religious dogma.
Not at all. You don't have to want to throw money at social problems to want gay people to be free to marry each other. You can even want to throw some money at social problems, but want to throw that money as carefully as possible. For example, maybe we don't need to spend our old-age safety net on millionaires. That maybe we don't have to spend a third of our budget on the military.
Indeed. If we could change the system that would be better. I only claim that given the system we have, fiscal conservative social liberals are employing a non-optimal strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was that he was in a permit-requiring area. Getting permits to work on live trees is a hassle, but for dead ones its expedited because of the fall danger.
I don't think even dogs can fix the Greek economy.
Technically, we can't be sure it's not an infection since the cause is unknown.
It's a combination of more aggressive measurement, and broadening of the definition (Autism used to be a peer of Asperger's for example, but is now the container diagnosis for both).
Well once the tree is dead getting the permit for a controlled removal should be easy.
Do it a little bit at a time, unless you've been a jerk to your neighbors no one is going to report you.
I think the evidence favors the liberal viewpoint: during that entire 30 years, the distribution of wealth has gotten nothing but worse, every single year. Why shouldn't the liberals still be favoring expansion of government given that very basic fact?
On what, exactly? Seriously ... look into it. Then a little deeper. You're almost there.
Have you looked at the plugins for firefox vs any other browser? Compare them, and the number of features for other browsers is pretty much approaching zero.
Every place I've been uses CK.
Is this something people actually use?
Of course, you don't have to worry about having any features then, either.
Right, the president only controls the military. Now what did we do with our military during those years, I can't recall.
Because the current government isn't doing enough to balance the social injustice created by poorly constrained capitalism. Workers in this country are creating enormous amounts of wealth, almost all of which is winding up in the hands of a tiny number of people. Government needs only be large enough to redress that fundamental unfairness.
The liberal bias of reality comes from liberals embracing science while conservatives reject it. Evolution is probably the most visible example. It's happening all around us, but conservatives reject it. Thus, reality is biased toward the liberal.
I don't think empirical evidence shows that at all. Most of the government spending on social programs goes to retirement for the elderly and health care for the elderly. There are places where we could do that with less waste (if the Republicans would let us!), but fundamentally most of that money is going to very reasonable things.
That's just factually incorrect. No liberal I have ever met wants that. We want the smallest effective government possible.
That would be better, and largely agrees with socially liberal fiscally conservative ideals.
You realize that the fact that we're all chained to pump prices is precisely because we haven't gone down the liberal economic path, right?
And that the deficit problem was largely brought on by the previous administration. The current one is trying to reverse that, and may just be beginning to turn the corner on that.
I consider replacing the democratic party much less realistic than re-purposing.
That's an extremist viewpoint that reflects the real political views of very few fiscal conservatives or social liberals. Most people actually want the smallest effective government they can get. Very few want 0% or 100%. The people who want 15% government should join the party currently dominated by 30% government and work to shift closer to 15%. They shouldn't join the party of oppressing homosexuals because of religious dogma.
Not at all. You don't have to want to throw money at social problems to want gay people to be free to marry each other. You can even want to throw some money at social problems, but want to throw that money as carefully as possible. For example, maybe we don't need to spend our old-age safety net on millionaires. That maybe we don't have to spend a third of our budget on the military.
That's a factual statement also but not the motivation for making houses of worship tax exempt.
Indeed. If we could change the system that would be better. I only claim that given the system we have, fiscal conservative social liberals are employing a non-optimal strategy.
What's your source for the reserve amounts vs daily usage? I used wikipedia.