Fact free? I cited opinions, bucko. Nice try. Anyway, seems like I pegged you correctly. You're just going to get increasingly salt without making any effort to make a coherent counter argument.
Your concession is noted. Please don't waste any more of my time with your pathetic attempts to save face. You're already a total failure absent any counter argument and throwing more ad hominems at me just validates my position while making you look like a complete fool.
So either man up and make a counter argument or put your stupid argument out of its misery.
being vague doesn't shield you from rebuttal. It doesn't help your argument to be incoherent. It isn't in you rhetorical interest to say something so murky that it can be taken a dozen different ways.
Let me be clear. If "you" have "anything what so ever" you'd like to say in regards to my position... then do so specifically.
Least anyone must conclude that "you" have "nothing" or you judge your position to be so weak that you feel the only way it can even presume to stand on the table is as a shadow cast from another room.
Demonstrate that you have an opinion at all... that you have ANY point what so ever by simply expressing it clearly.
You say I am doing something but you don't specify. You make an ad hominem about my sanity but don't say upon what you base a complex psychological assessment that you are doubtless incompetent to judge in the first place even if you had the time to assess my mental state... which you haven't. You say I am incapable of "independent thought"... you say I am a puppet? Of what and what sort of magic was used to render that control? As to being analytical, my statement in this response to you alone demonstrates that I am in fact vastly more analytical than you are...
"" using or skilled in using analysis (i.e., separating a whole--intellectual or substantial--into its elemental parts or basic principles) ""
I analyzed your statement to me. I broke it down, categorized it line by line, and interpreted it. I even showed my work. You did no such thing to my post. I did that to YOUR post. Point in fact is that I am analytical... you are not. You are doubtless a blustering sophist. And sad wretches such as yourself are incapable of doing anything more than flim flamming some rhetorical snake oil and then running away before the poor dupes realize you're a fraud. Because I am analytical, your snake oil is identified on delivery as snake oil and you are cited as a fraud on sight.
Engage me and lose. That is not a threat... it is merely the rumblings of my appetite to gobble your undeserved sense of self worth. Engage me so I can correct this insult to civic order. Or evade and then run away thus validating my position without even having to try.
Its heads I win and tail you concede. Your only path to redemption is to engage me and prove me wrong. But you lack the mental tools or intellectual integrity to do that... so this shouldn't take long should test it.
Not at all. The point is that certain elements of our government have been corrupted.
You need to understand how they win and then adapt your tactics.
1. Transparency. None of this "you have to pass it to know what is in it". No negotiations made out of the public light. Involve everyone in every step or the process should be taken as invalid.
2. Inflexible simplicity. Complexity is frequently used in security and obscurity. The point is to make something so complex that no one understands what they're looking at but the people for whom the message is intended. Our tax code is 70,000 pages long. That size is what it is for a reason and it isn't a reason you'd like to actually defend. It is that way because the only people that understand the code when it is that long and tedious are lobbyists, special interests, and high level accountants. If you don't want to be tricked then the majority needs to understand every detail of the tax code which will not happen unless the code is very simple.. and the only way to keep it that simple after it is made that simple is to insist that it be inflexible in its simplicity. Short of that, you won't know what is going on well enough to be worth tricking. There will be no need to fool you when you're too blind to be fooled in the first place.
3. Truly even playing field so that there is neither a high ground or a low ground... Flat. No exceptions. ANY variation in the playing field can and will be exploited. Vary it and there will be a high ground and a low ground... and the side that takes the preferred ground will have an advantage. Do not permit it. Have there be no preferable ground. Equality before the law. Blind Justice. The scales are linear. They have more or less weight. There is no preference in a scale. A pound of feathers or a pound of lead. The weight is what matters. One variable of relevance. When your code has many variables then you can start to bend the rules around again. So you simplify it to a single variable hold that as the only relevant factor. In this case, that would be whatever the tax is based upon. One variable. No conditions. No exceptions. No elaborations. The taxed variable is measured and charged. Done.
4. Vigilance on the above points to the death. Its all well and good to change something like this but it means nothing if it only works this way for a day or a minute. The system has to be set up in such a manner that it cannot be easily changed after it has been set up this way. Checks and balances have to be put in place so that super majorities are required to change the rules. What is more, enforcement of the dictates has to be applied by multiple semi independent agencies that check and balance each other. This is something that needs to be validated in the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the various relevant aspects of the state governments bilaterally such that corruption in one part of the system can be purged by any non-corrupt error checking system. The corruption will try to seep into it... know that. Prepare for it. And deal with it without hesitation, mercy, or remorse.
Throwing your hands up because people are corrupt simply means you know nothing of how to set up a system that error checks. Take how computers deal with corruption. Corruption happens all the time in data storage. Constantly. It is error checked, backed up, and either corrected or replaced from verified storage.
A system having problems is not an argument to have no system. It is rather an argument to have a system that takes those problems into consideration and designs assuming that problems are problems and they can be solved by addressing them methodically.
We are human beings. We build great machines of incredible complexity that address far more taxing problems than what faces our civic institutions. The only difference is that the engineers design our machines... and the politicians design our civic institutions. One of the two is systematically educated in how to address problems in their field and the other is not.
If they define wealth as not wealth then they can define time as not time.
The point is that a tax advocated by people that are not already paying it voluntarily is not something they intend to pay in the future. If they did, they would already. They're not so the offer is insincere.
People need to get better at learning to spot lies logically.
Politicians want to be reelected. Corporations want to make money. The rich want to be richer The poor want to be comfortable/less poor. And everything tries to survive.
When a politician does something, there's a political angle.
When a corporation does something, there is a financial angle.
When the rich do something, there is a wealth angle.
When the poor do something, there is a comfort angle.
When anything does anything it does it out of some sense of what is in its interests from a survival perspective.
Find the interest and then see if the entity was being honest about it. You may care or not either way but you'll at least know what the entity really thinks it is actually doing. This makes it predictable. You know what it is after and can count on it going from point A to point B eventually.
What is white guilt and marxism? You have google... these are common terms. You can inform yourself.
As to what we are told and what we intended to do... the point was that the accusations are hyperbolic. Restricting immigration a bit doesn't make us Nazis unless the Australians and Mexicans are Nazis... both restrict immigration to a greater extent than we do.
The point further is that in stopping us from doing small sensible things that can deal with the problem before it becomes extreme... you create a situation where a sudden and extreme action will eventually be required. This means to a certain extent you're guilty of the self fulfilling prophecy. You predict something that won't happen but then do things in such a manner that what you predict happens.
You're doing it right now.
As to finding another path... you've gone out of your way to close off other paths. Our options are fewer every day. You stopped what was going to happen before... the simple easy solutions that no one would have noticed or minded or remarked upon... and you've made it increasingly necessary that more radical options become a requirement.
The political establishments in the US and Europe are crumbling because people like YOU had the arrogance to think you could do what you're doing indefinitely. Consequences. You have not paid attention to the politics. To the numbers. To the interests. And it will crack your humpty dumpty political order... and all the king's horses and all the king's men... won't be able to put humpty dumpty back together again.;)
So your plan is to shore up the snapping steel wires with personal insults?
Look at the system and note that it is buckling. Posting some pathetic insults in my direction when I make the statements I made... is an ad hominem fallacy. You're not actually arguing against my point. You're just trying to change the subject. Which means my statement stands unmolested. You totally ignored it.
White guilt and marxism have mixed in our cultures to tranquilize us.
We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.
The danger is not that these people will destroy us... they aren't killing us fast enough. The danger is rather that there is tension building up between what we want to do and what we're told to do. This tension is a cable that is being strained. It is buckling. If you listen you can hear the cable groan and fray.
It is going to break.
And when it does... the change will be dramatic... like an arrow flying from a bow. Here one moment... there another. Snap.
The danger is that the very resistence to our reaction is self fulfilling the prophecy. Had we been allowed to do what we were inclined to do in the first place. Cut down on the immigration. Ensure there was more integration. Ease the problem. There would be no extreme reaction. But it is increasingly probable that the longer that is put off the more extreme the actual reaction is going to be in the end.
Sudden and extreme. People are being pushed to a point where they don't care anymore. Where any consideration and complaint simply loses meaning. There is a madness building. And if you stop and listen you can sense it.
Don't worry about the West... We're not the ones that are going to need to protection or pity. We're going to go from Dr Jekyll... to Mr Hyde. There is a duality in the West. The Japanese learned of it when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We can turn on a dime.
All that has to be done is to purge the irrational guilt... scour our flesh clean with fire... and then the Marxism has to be burned out. You can see that happening already. The Unions are turning on the Marxists throughout the West. It is in part why they want to bring in as many immigrants as possible. To replace the population with a fresh crop of dupes. Its failing in the US and it is failing in England and it is failed in Eastern Europe and it would never even be considered in the far east. The Marxists are on borrowed time everywhere but south america... and there they only survive out of some false sense of shared guilt which holds them down.
I said neither which implies two variables which confirms that i understand that there are multiple variables here... your pathetic attempt to obscure that obvious point does prove that you're arguing in bad faith. What I said was that neither is going to change and that your reason for wanting it to change is basically hipster logic at this point that is best treated with dismissal or exile to the retard table. What is your "reason" for wanting this to change? Give me a good logistical reason for it that takes into consideration the lack of space considerations in the home environment and the priority on bandwidth and ease of fabrication at the data center level.
You instantly fail because you're wrong. The cables are not shrinking and neither are the connectors. If anything we're going to pack more into the existing cable. Fiber-optic cables becoming an aspect of the existing cable standard is likely at this point. And that's going to at a minimum keep the cable size right where it is...
There's no good reason to shrink either the cable or the connector. You don't like cables? Use wifi with the other hipsters. In places where effectiveness matters the cable is going to remain robust.
So desperate are you to score a point that you're just making a liar of yourself. Eating your own shit to hide it doesn't give you a win. It just makes your breath stink. You didn't hide anything. You just pretended it didn't exist after it was pointed out to you.
You lose. *flicks a frozen pea at the twits forehead, scores a hit between his eyes, and laughs*
You can't assume emotional investment from anything I said.
Poe's law... right? Why are all of you so bad at the internet? Seriously? Why are you so bad at knowing how anything works?
Here's the thing, you don't know me. You don't know the tone of voice I would express anything in... you don't know my emotional state or my emotional investment or actually anything besides what I said. Inferring... which is what you're doing... is really very very unreliable. And to make any firm opinion based on what is known to be unreliable is foolish... on your part... its foolish... dumb... not smart... ill informed... unwise.
Savvy, cupcake? You don't know what anyone "feels" here much less me.
What dumb positions like this always boil down to is some fool like yourself ultimately claiming to have psychic powers and/or a psychology degree... because nothing impresses me more than the most over rated subject you can possibly take at college... well besides laughable claims to super human powers.
Anywho, I'll let you continue to delude yourself by getting another fool to agree with you. Because if we know anything about the universe... the truth is a democracy. And that means that a plurality of idiots can be right about anything so long as they agree with each other... right guys?
So what evhs...:) --- My emotional state. Smiley face.:D - open mouthed taunt.
They lobby for these loopholes. They make back room deals to get them and then they use them. They outsource their employees. They hide their wealth in financial mechanisms that cause "income" to not be classified as income. They shift the jurisdiction of the income from one country to another to bounce the money around the world so that who can say which country's tax codes should be applied to it.
And when they've done all that, they say "raise our taxes"... This isn't a plea for fixing anything. Its a taunt.
You could raise the tax rate to 100% and a lot of these people wouldn't really feel the bite. Because the tax rate hits INCOME. Not wealth. Want to wipe the smirk off their condescending faces? Suggest instead a wealth tax. Oh just 1 percent... something small. Something that they can't hide by redefining what is and is not income. Say "well you have outstanding assets of this many billions of dollars"... Done.
Do I want such a tax? Not really. But these calls for increases to the tax rate won't hit the super rich. They'll hit the people biting at their heels. They'll hit the middle class. They'll hit the lower upper class. But the super rich? They're utterly immune to this because they know the loopholes, they can buy the politicians to create them if they're not already there, and they can hire the accountants to do the dance to exploit them.
Look at the likes of Warren Buffet. The man has built his entire empire around not paying taxes.
He's a liar. And the move to jack up taxes by this group is likewise deceitful. If they want to pay more, then no one is stopping them. Cut a check to the US IRS. It will be cashed. here someone will say "but no one will do that unless they're forced to by law"... they won't do it even if the law supposedly forces them because they'll use a loophole. They don't want to pay and if they did they wouldn't need a law passed to make them pay. They'd just pay. They don't pay because they don't want to pay which means the call to have taxes increased are disingenuous by anyone that is not voluntarily paying more already.
False. I stated MY opinion, shit for brains. It is "MY" opinion that people will in general prefer warmer weather. That is... MY opinion of someone else's opinion. But that is still my opinion. It is YOUR opinion that someone might like to be cold... as few people move to cold places for the weather, I think you've got your head up your ass. That's another of "my" opinions... idiot. I have to point out what are my opinions with people like you apparently because you don't know what is and is not self evidently a statement of opinion... fuckwit.
Deep throat a loaded shotgun and have a nice oblivion. *cheers*
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the cable or the connector. Neither one is getting changed.
Seriously... you're a bunch of halfwits that want to change something for no reason. There's no reason to push this... it accomplishes nothing. The cables are just fine as they are... the only thing we'll be looking for in the future is making them push more bandwidth. And guess what... them being bulkier and the connector being nice and easy to fabricate in the field is a plus.
You disagree? Give me a good reason right now why we'd want to change this? Something besides the utterly laughable aesthetic reason of "well my i-shit would look cooler if the cable were designed by apple".
This is the sort of protest most aptly responded to with a tear gas grenade. You're so f'ing out of touch its hilarious.
If I lost, then why is my position the default position that will stand whilst yours will fall? Who is winning here? RJ45 isn't going anywhere. That is my position and the reality. And you take the opposing position which has lost before it has started... and then when I point that out... you say I lose?
Lose what? The only thing AC fuckwits like you cost anyone is time and patience. You're almost universally fucking stupid. And you go from thread to thread, losing any argument you get involved in besides pissing people off because you're so stupid that you fuck up discussions.
I don't care though... My point is that RJ45 isn't going anywhere. You want to disagree? Be wrong.
Unlike you, I am not threatened by contradiction because I'm not wrong. I can just let things work themselves out and be right. Easiest thing in the world if you have a clue.
As to existing diplomats that are engaging with countries on a day to day basis being involved in negotiations that are handled in detail on that basis... they are involved. Why would I not involve them? They're in a better position to know what is going on than most people would be.
What is more, you're very carefully ignoring the fact that this is precisely how these arrangements were handled in the past. You keep trying to undermine my position by saying such and such a thing wouldn't work or is unusual. But this betrays an ignorance of how things were handled in the past and frankly remain handled in most circumstances. What I am proposing "IS" the standard means of coming to an arrangement.
Your solution is "non" standard. Mine is how it is done. These universal agreements are new, untested, non-standard, and generally a stupid idea that will backfire.
As to standardization being popular, no... making money is popular. A custom deal lets people maximize their offer while maximizing their profit because situations will be different.
This is why big deals in business are custom where as small deals are standard. Small deals are standard because they're not worth creating a custom deal for... but once a few million dollars is on the table it becomes worth it to make a custom deal. Trade deals between nations well surpasses that threshold.
Doing a standard deal between nations is foolish and ignorant.
As to your presumption of being in the loop... you can't claim that without substantiation. So that claim is rejected with as much evidence as you used to support it - None.
As to the inevitability of your TPP... Every bad idea always has its supporters claim it is inevitable when they've got nothing left to support themselves. Communists say the same thing when pushed to the wall... they say they're on the right side of history despite losing repeatedly. If you're inevitable then you wouldn't need to defend your position. It would defend itself. It is losing and is unlikely to actually be ratified. So... nice try. You're not inevitable. You've lost. And it isn't a question of losing a battle and winning the war. There is a paradigm shift coming on trade in general. Claiming to have a crystal ball on that is presumptuous.
As to my positions being vague, this is at this point a dishonest complaint on your part since you've offered if anything vaguer comments and I've explained that any response would be specific to a given circumstance. Expecting a complete prospectus from me on something like this would put a disproportionate burden on me to produce something complex while you can just sit there and troll. Your position doesn't pass the laugh test. You be specific and clear or your complaint can only be taken as a rhetorical ploy. You were told REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY that any response would be specific to the specific circumstance. A general policy is contrary to my position since I've been very clear that my point is to not have a general policy. So faulting me for not having clear general policies when my stated thesis is that having a specific general policy is foolish... is a foolish request. Listen. The point is to NOT have a general policy. Did you hear me that time? Because this has to be at least the fifth time I've made that clear to you.
As to objectives I have for the US. To serve US strategic interests. Those will vary from one country to another. Some countries I'll want to make money. Some I'll want to bias trade for the other country or for the US. it will vary. Not all countries are interchangeable. For some countries, it is in our interests to damage their economy. For others, it is in our interests to help those economies. For others it doesn't really matter or our own economy is the most important in that situation. The scale of the trade is relevant. Larger economies will bias my decision making to make money. Where as smaller economies will bias my decision making to do things on a more political basis. However, that depends
Ethernet is fine as it is and the bandwidth is going up and up so shrinking the cable could only force us to expand it again later when we decide we need more bandwidth or something.
No it isn't a supposition because the negociations would be handled primarily by diplomats that were assigned to those countries anyway. Since countries would have individually assigned diplomats regardless there would be no relevant reduction in staff.
Our diplomats do more than trade deals. They are in each of these countries all the time to represent US interests in any issue that might come up including trade. A unified trade deal would not change the need for having people in each country that are specifically assigned to that country. So there would be no reduction in staff.
And again, even if there were, and there wouldn't, the cost saving would be so comically minor that even mentioning it would be a sign of ignorance.
As to standardization being valuable, not in deal making. We are not discussing the manufacturing of screws. There is no value in the standardization of international trade deals.
As to other countries being able to gain power under one circumstance so they can do it regardless... you're conflating intentionally facilitating a negative situation with someone obtaining that negative situation absent facilitation. This is logically invalid. Just because someone might get something if I'm STUPID enough to give them that situation for free on a platter like a fool... doesn't mean that they'd get that same situation regardless.
As to specifics... Canada for example would have very favorable trade deals with limited if any scrutiny of its day by day interactions with our economy. Other countries such as China or Russia or Iran or whatever would have more complicated checks and balances with a built in ability to apply leverage and pressure should there be foul play detected. The specifics would be specific to each nations trade interactions. Russia for example is mostly exchanging raw materials such as oil, lumber, etc. Where as China is mostly dealing in manufactured goods. And then you have Iran which tends to sell more to non-western countries but BUY from western countries things which it can neither buy nor sell from anyone but western countries. Leverage in each case would not be applied the same way because the given nations are interacting completely differently with the United States and our economy. So each country would have leverage applied differently.
Applying economic leverage on Russia is largely a matter of driving down the value or blocking off markets for their goods. Again, this is not something you do when Russia is behaving themselves but if they start getting cute with their interactions you can encourage US exports that compete with their goods to flow into markets they wish to sell in... this will drive down prices. You can also direct such goods into the international market in general which gives greater plausible deniability whilst also obtaining a reduction in their profits. If more extreme action is warranted, then you can start lobbying those markets directly either openly or secretly to switch off Russian products entirely or merely reduce the scale of the purchase.
That's a stick. You can also offer carrots in the form of encouraging Russian technological and industrial exports which is something Russia would very much like to shift to as it would help fund their industry which would be beneficial to the Russian state and economy in several manners.
The efficiency of negotiations assumes your labors as diplomats are expensive in the scheme of things. They're not.
What is more, we'd hire as many of you regardless of which way you negotiated it. So the entire effort and focus on your part is a nonsense.
Rather than going for CHEAPNESS you should instead go for QUALITY especially since your attempts to lower cost are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and the merits of BETTER deals vastly outstrips the non-existent and again... irrelevant savings of having a few fewer diplomats.
I do not mean to sound rude if I am coming off that way... I am merely baffled as to why you're so focused on saving money on negociations when there is no evidence that that has ever mattered.
We are talking about deals that involve TRILLIONS of dollars in trade. The savings of some few millions at most is laughable in that context. What is more, you won't even save that because as I've said... we'll hire the same number of people regardless.
Keep in mind, we have to have diplomats in EACH of these countries either way. So consolidating the talks doesn't avoid those people being employed. its a zero sum game.
You will hire them either way.
As to having a standard practice, no two nations are the same so attempting to have a standard deal to encompass non-standard circumstances is counter productive.
Counter... Productive.
Zero Sum... Game.
Consolidation has only one merit... and it isn't ours. Opposing powers can use join negotiations to force "US" to abide by contracts that we would otherwise not accept on an individual basis. That is to say... on top of the this being counter productive, not saving money, it also exposes us to additional risk with virtually no possibility of any upside what so ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact free? I cited opinions, bucko. Nice try. Anyway, seems like I pegged you correctly. You're just going to get increasingly salt without making any effort to make a coherent counter argument.
Your concession is noted. Please don't waste any more of my time with your pathetic attempts to save face. You're already a total failure absent any counter argument and throwing more ad hominems at me just validates my position while making you look like a complete fool.
So either man up and make a counter argument or put your stupid argument out of its misery.
being vague doesn't shield you from rebuttal. It doesn't help your argument to be incoherent. It isn't in you rhetorical interest to say something so murky that it can be taken a dozen different ways.
Let me be clear. If "you" have "anything what so ever" you'd like to say in regards to my position... then do so specifically.
Least anyone must conclude that "you" have "nothing" or you judge your position to be so weak that you feel the only way it can even presume to stand on the table is as a shadow cast from another room.
Demonstrate that you have an opinion at all... that you have ANY point what so ever by simply expressing it clearly.
You say I am doing something but you don't specify. You make an ad hominem about my sanity but don't say upon what you base a complex psychological assessment that you are doubtless incompetent to judge in the first place even if you had the time to assess my mental state... which you haven't. You say I am incapable of "independent thought"... you say I am a puppet? Of what and what sort of magic was used to render that control? As to being analytical, my statement in this response to you alone demonstrates that I am in fact vastly more analytical than you are...
""
using or skilled in using analysis (i.e., separating a whole--intellectual or substantial--into its elemental parts or basic principles)
""
I analyzed your statement to me. I broke it down, categorized it line by line, and interpreted it. I even showed my work. You did no such thing to my post. I did that to YOUR post. Point in fact is that I am analytical... you are not. You are doubtless a blustering sophist. And sad wretches such as yourself are incapable of doing anything more than flim flamming some rhetorical snake oil and then running away before the poor dupes realize you're a fraud. Because I am analytical, your snake oil is identified on delivery as snake oil and you are cited as a fraud on sight.
Engage me and lose. That is not a threat... it is merely the rumblings of my appetite to gobble your undeserved sense of self worth. Engage me so I can correct this insult to civic order. Or evade and then run away thus validating my position without even having to try.
Its heads I win and tail you concede. Your only path to redemption is to engage me and prove me wrong. But you lack the mental tools or intellectual integrity to do that... so this shouldn't take long should test it.
As you will... :)
To which one could respond with a citation of the New York phone book from 1972.
Your posts are null. And as null posts they leave my argument unmolested. My argument stands. You've done literally nothing to refute it.
Not at all. The point is that certain elements of our government have been corrupted.
You need to understand how they win and then adapt your tactics.
1. Transparency. None of this "you have to pass it to know what is in it". No negotiations made out of the public light. Involve everyone in every step or the process should be taken as invalid.
2. Inflexible simplicity. Complexity is frequently used in security and obscurity. The point is to make something so complex that no one understands what they're looking at but the people for whom the message is intended. Our tax code is 70,000 pages long. That size is what it is for a reason and it isn't a reason you'd like to actually defend. It is that way because the only people that understand the code when it is that long and tedious are lobbyists, special interests, and high level accountants. If you don't want to be tricked then the majority needs to understand every detail of the tax code which will not happen unless the code is very simple.. and the only way to keep it that simple after it is made that simple is to insist that it be inflexible in its simplicity. Short of that, you won't know what is going on well enough to be worth tricking. There will be no need to fool you when you're too blind to be fooled in the first place.
3. Truly even playing field so that there is neither a high ground or a low ground... Flat. No exceptions. ANY variation in the playing field can and will be exploited. Vary it and there will be a high ground and a low ground... and the side that takes the preferred ground will have an advantage. Do not permit it. Have there be no preferable ground. Equality before the law. Blind Justice. The scales are linear. They have more or less weight. There is no preference in a scale. A pound of feathers or a pound of lead. The weight is what matters. One variable of relevance. When your code has many variables then you can start to bend the rules around again. So you simplify it to a single variable hold that as the only relevant factor. In this case, that would be whatever the tax is based upon. One variable. No conditions. No exceptions. No elaborations. The taxed variable is measured and charged. Done.
4. Vigilance on the above points to the death. Its all well and good to change something like this but it means nothing if it only works this way for a day or a minute. The system has to be set up in such a manner that it cannot be easily changed after it has been set up this way. Checks and balances have to be put in place so that super majorities are required to change the rules. What is more, enforcement of the dictates has to be applied by multiple semi independent agencies that check and balance each other. This is something that needs to be validated in the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the various relevant aspects of the state governments bilaterally such that corruption in one part of the system can be purged by any non-corrupt error checking system. The corruption will try to seep into it... know that. Prepare for it. And deal with it without hesitation, mercy, or remorse.
Throwing your hands up because people are corrupt simply means you know nothing of how to set up a system that error checks. Take how computers deal with corruption. Corruption happens all the time in data storage. Constantly. It is error checked, backed up, and either corrected or replaced from verified storage.
A system having problems is not an argument to have no system. It is rather an argument to have a system that takes those problems into consideration and designs assuming that problems are problems and they can be solved by addressing them methodically.
We are human beings. We build great machines of incredible complexity that address far more taxing problems than what faces our civic institutions. The only difference is that the engineers design our machines... and the politicians design our civic institutions. One of the two is systematically educated in how to address problems in their field and the other is not.
Allow me to quote the library of congress to rebut.
Your evasion is noted. You basically had no response and so basically did the rhetorical version of "hey look over there"...
*yawn*
Unless you are going to contend with my argument, my point is uncontested.
Your post was effectively null.
If they define wealth as not wealth then they can define time as not time.
The point is that a tax advocated by people that are not already paying it voluntarily is not something they intend to pay in the future. If they did, they would already. They're not so the offer is insincere.
People need to get better at learning to spot lies logically.
Politicians want to be reelected.
Corporations want to make money.
The rich want to be richer
The poor want to be comfortable/less poor.
And everything tries to survive.
When a politician does something, there's a political angle.
When a corporation does something, there is a financial angle.
When the rich do something, there is a wealth angle.
When the poor do something, there is a comfort angle.
When anything does anything it does it out of some sense of what is in its interests from a survival perspective.
Find the interest and then see if the entity was being honest about it. You may care or not either way but you'll at least know what the entity really thinks it is actually doing. This makes it predictable. You know what it is after and can count on it going from point A to point B eventually.
What is white guilt and marxism? You have google... these are common terms. You can inform yourself.
As to what we are told and what we intended to do... the point was that the accusations are hyperbolic. Restricting immigration a bit doesn't make us Nazis unless the Australians and Mexicans are Nazis... both restrict immigration to a greater extent than we do.
The point further is that in stopping us from doing small sensible things that can deal with the problem before it becomes extreme... you create a situation where a sudden and extreme action will eventually be required. This means to a certain extent you're guilty of the self fulfilling prophecy. You predict something that won't happen but then do things in such a manner that what you predict happens.
You're doing it right now.
As to finding another path... you've gone out of your way to close off other paths. Our options are fewer every day. You stopped what was going to happen before... the simple easy solutions that no one would have noticed or minded or remarked upon... and you've made it increasingly necessary that more radical options become a requirement.
The political establishments in the US and Europe are crumbling because people like YOU had the arrogance to think you could do what you're doing indefinitely. Consequences. You have not paid attention to the politics. To the numbers. To the interests. And it will crack your humpty dumpty political order... and all the king's horses and all the king's men... won't be able to put humpty dumpty back together again. ;)
So your plan is to shore up the snapping steel wires with personal insults?
Look at the system and note that it is buckling. Posting some pathetic insults in my direction when I make the statements I made... is an ad hominem fallacy. You're not actually arguing against my point. You're just trying to change the subject. Which means my statement stands unmolested. You totally ignored it.
Its building. Attacking me won't stop it.
White guilt and marxism have mixed in our cultures to tranquilize us.
We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.
The danger is not that these people will destroy us... they aren't killing us fast enough. The danger is rather that there is tension building up between what we want to do and what we're told to do. This tension is a cable that is being strained. It is buckling. If you listen you can hear the cable groan and fray.
It is going to break.
And when it does... the change will be dramatic... like an arrow flying from a bow. Here one moment... there another. Snap.
The danger is that the very resistence to our reaction is self fulfilling the prophecy. Had we been allowed to do what we were inclined to do in the first place. Cut down on the immigration. Ensure there was more integration. Ease the problem. There would be no extreme reaction. But it is increasingly probable that the longer that is put off the more extreme the actual reaction is going to be in the end.
Sudden and extreme. People are being pushed to a point where they don't care anymore. Where any consideration and complaint simply loses meaning. There is a madness building. And if you stop and listen you can sense it.
Don't worry about the West... We're not the ones that are going to need to protection or pity. We're going to go from Dr Jekyll... to Mr Hyde. There is a duality in the West. The Japanese learned of it when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We can turn on a dime.
All that has to be done is to purge the irrational guilt... scour our flesh clean with fire... and then the Marxism has to be burned out. You can see that happening already. The Unions are turning on the Marxists throughout the West. It is in part why they want to bring in as many immigrants as possible. To replace the population with a fresh crop of dupes. Its failing in the US and it is failing in England and it is failed in Eastern Europe and it would never even be considered in the far east. The Marxists are on borrowed time everywhere but south america... and there they only survive out of some false sense of shared guilt which holds them down.
The change is coming...
https://youtu.be/YNieysjSZW4?t...
They really should have known better... this was all avoidable.
I said neither which implies two variables which confirms that i understand that there are multiple variables here... your pathetic attempt to obscure that obvious point does prove that you're arguing in bad faith. What I said was that neither is going to change and that your reason for wanting it to change is basically hipster logic at this point that is best treated with dismissal or exile to the retard table. What is your "reason" for wanting this to change? Give me a good logistical reason for it that takes into consideration the lack of space considerations in the home environment and the priority on bandwidth and ease of fabrication at the data center level.
You instantly fail because you're wrong. The cables are not shrinking and neither are the connectors. If anything we're going to pack more into the existing cable. Fiber-optic cables becoming an aspect of the existing cable standard is likely at this point. And that's going to at a minimum keep the cable size right where it is...
There's no good reason to shrink either the cable or the connector. You don't like cables? Use wifi with the other hipsters. In places where effectiveness matters the cable is going to remain robust.
So desperate are you to score a point that you're just making a liar of yourself. Eating your own shit to hide it doesn't give you a win. It just makes your breath stink. You didn't hide anything. You just pretended it didn't exist after it was pointed out to you.
You lose. *flicks a frozen pea at the twits forehead, scores a hit between his eyes, and laughs*
You can't assume emotional investment from anything I said.
Poe's law... right? Why are all of you so bad at the internet? Seriously? Why are you so bad at knowing how anything works?
Here's the thing, you don't know me. You don't know the tone of voice I would express anything in... you don't know my emotional state or my emotional investment or actually anything besides what I said. Inferring... which is what you're doing... is really very very unreliable. And to make any firm opinion based on what is known to be unreliable is foolish... on your part... its foolish... dumb... not smart... ill informed... unwise.
Savvy, cupcake? You don't know what anyone "feels" here much less me.
What dumb positions like this always boil down to is some fool like yourself ultimately claiming to have psychic powers and/or a psychology degree... because nothing impresses me more than the most over rated subject you can possibly take at college... well besides laughable claims to super human powers.
Anywho, I'll let you continue to delude yourself by getting another fool to agree with you. Because if we know anything about the universe... the truth is a democracy. And that means that a plurality of idiots can be right about anything so long as they agree with each other... right guys?
So what evhs... :) --- My emotional state. Smiley face. :D - open mouthed taunt.
They lobby for these loopholes. They make back room deals to get them and then they use them. They outsource their employees. They hide their wealth in financial mechanisms that cause "income" to not be classified as income. They shift the jurisdiction of the income from one country to another to bounce the money around the world so that who can say which country's tax codes should be applied to it.
And when they've done all that, they say "raise our taxes"... This isn't a plea for fixing anything. Its a taunt.
You could raise the tax rate to 100% and a lot of these people wouldn't really feel the bite. Because the tax rate hits INCOME. Not wealth. Want to wipe the smirk off their condescending faces? Suggest instead a wealth tax. Oh just 1 percent... something small. Something that they can't hide by redefining what is and is not income. Say "well you have outstanding assets of this many billions of dollars"... Done.
Do I want such a tax? Not really. But these calls for increases to the tax rate won't hit the super rich. They'll hit the people biting at their heels. They'll hit the middle class. They'll hit the lower upper class. But the super rich? They're utterly immune to this because they know the loopholes, they can buy the politicians to create them if they're not already there, and they can hire the accountants to do the dance to exploit them.
Look at the likes of Warren Buffet. The man has built his entire empire around not paying taxes.
He's a liar. And the move to jack up taxes by this group is likewise deceitful. If they want to pay more, then no one is stopping them. Cut a check to the US IRS. It will be cashed. here someone will say "but no one will do that unless they're forced to by law"... they won't do it even if the law supposedly forces them because they'll use a loophole. They don't want to pay and if they did they wouldn't need a law passed to make them pay. They'd just pay. They don't pay because they don't want to pay which means the call to have taxes increased are disingenuous by anyone that is not voluntarily paying more already.
You're all being played. Notice it.
False. I stated MY opinion, shit for brains. It is "MY" opinion that people will in general prefer warmer weather. That is... MY opinion of someone else's opinion. But that is still my opinion. It is YOUR opinion that someone might like to be cold... as few people move to cold places for the weather, I think you've got your head up your ass. That's another of "my" opinions... idiot. I have to point out what are my opinions with people like you apparently because you don't know what is and is not self evidently a statement of opinion... fuckwit.
Deep throat a loaded shotgun and have a nice oblivion. *cheers*
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the cable or the connector. Neither one is getting changed.
Seriously... you're a bunch of halfwits that want to change something for no reason. There's no reason to push this... it accomplishes nothing. The cables are just fine as they are... the only thing we'll be looking for in the future is making them push more bandwidth. And guess what... them being bulkier and the connector being nice and easy to fabricate in the field is a plus.
You disagree? Give me a good reason right now why we'd want to change this? Something besides the utterly laughable aesthetic reason of "well my i-shit would look cooler if the cable were designed by apple".
This is the sort of protest most aptly responded to with a tear gas grenade. You're so f'ing out of touch its hilarious.
My point was self evident to anyone not going out of their way to be obtuse or who can't help being obtuse by dint of being stupid.
So... thanks for telling me who I'm talking to...
kid? old man? Neck beard? ...
If I lost, then why is my position the default position that will stand whilst yours will fall? Who is winning here? RJ45 isn't going anywhere. That is my position and the reality. And you take the opposing position which has lost before it has started... and then when I point that out... you say I lose?
Lose what? The only thing AC fuckwits like you cost anyone is time and patience. You're almost universally fucking stupid. And you go from thread to thread, losing any argument you get involved in besides pissing people off because you're so stupid that you fuck up discussions.
I don't care though... My point is that RJ45 isn't going anywhere. You want to disagree? Be wrong.
Unlike you, I am not threatened by contradiction because I'm not wrong. I can just let things work themselves out and be right. Easiest thing in the world if you have a clue.
No, I plainly stated that most people wouldn't mind if it did change.
As to my understanding of what is and is not a strawman... sadly for you... my understanding is as accurate as it is keen. You lose.
As to existing diplomats that are engaging with countries on a day to day basis being involved in negotiations that are handled in detail on that basis... they are involved. Why would I not involve them? They're in a better position to know what is going on than most people would be.
What is more, you're very carefully ignoring the fact that this is precisely how these arrangements were handled in the past. You keep trying to undermine my position by saying such and such a thing wouldn't work or is unusual. But this betrays an ignorance of how things were handled in the past and frankly remain handled in most circumstances. What I am proposing "IS" the standard means of coming to an arrangement.
Your solution is "non" standard. Mine is how it is done. These universal agreements are new, untested, non-standard, and generally a stupid idea that will backfire.
As to standardization being popular, no... making money is popular. A custom deal lets people maximize their offer while maximizing their profit because situations will be different.
This is why big deals in business are custom where as small deals are standard. Small deals are standard because they're not worth creating a custom deal for... but once a few million dollars is on the table it becomes worth it to make a custom deal. Trade deals between nations well surpasses that threshold.
Doing a standard deal between nations is foolish and ignorant.
As to your presumption of being in the loop... you can't claim that without substantiation. So that claim is rejected with as much evidence as you used to support it - None.
As to the inevitability of your TPP... Every bad idea always has its supporters claim it is inevitable when they've got nothing left to support themselves. Communists say the same thing when pushed to the wall... they say they're on the right side of history despite losing repeatedly. If you're inevitable then you wouldn't need to defend your position. It would defend itself. It is losing and is unlikely to actually be ratified. So... nice try. You're not inevitable. You've lost. And it isn't a question of losing a battle and winning the war. There is a paradigm shift coming on trade in general. Claiming to have a crystal ball on that is presumptuous.
As to my positions being vague, this is at this point a dishonest complaint on your part since you've offered if anything vaguer comments and I've explained that any response would be specific to a given circumstance. Expecting a complete prospectus from me on something like this would put a disproportionate burden on me to produce something complex while you can just sit there and troll. Your position doesn't pass the laugh test. You be specific and clear or your complaint can only be taken as a rhetorical ploy. You were told REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY that any response would be specific to the specific circumstance. A general policy is contrary to my position since I've been very clear that my point is to not have a general policy. So faulting me for not having clear general policies when my stated thesis is that having a specific general policy is foolish... is a foolish request. Listen. The point is to NOT have a general policy. Did you hear me that time? Because this has to be at least the fifth time I've made that clear to you.
As to objectives I have for the US. To serve US strategic interests. Those will vary from one country to another. Some countries I'll want to make money. Some I'll want to bias trade for the other country or for the US. it will vary. Not all countries are interchangeable. For some countries, it is in our interests to damage their economy. For others, it is in our interests to help those economies. For others it doesn't really matter or our own economy is the most important in that situation. The scale of the trade is relevant. Larger economies will bias my decision making to make money. Where as smaller economies will bias my decision making to do things on a more political basis. However, that depends
No, you're trying to strawman and conflate. I'm not splitting anything. I'm just not letting you strawman me.
You're asking for something and I'm saying "pound sand."
No. Next issue?
Ethernet is fine as it is and the bandwidth is going up and up so shrinking the cable could only force us to expand it again later when we decide we need more bandwidth or something.
Leave it alone.
No it isn't a supposition because the negociations would be handled primarily by diplomats that were assigned to those countries anyway. Since countries would have individually assigned diplomats regardless there would be no relevant reduction in staff.
Our diplomats do more than trade deals. They are in each of these countries all the time to represent US interests in any issue that might come up including trade. A unified trade deal would not change the need for having people in each country that are specifically assigned to that country. So there would be no reduction in staff.
And again, even if there were, and there wouldn't, the cost saving would be so comically minor that even mentioning it would be a sign of ignorance.
As to standardization being valuable, not in deal making. We are not discussing the manufacturing of screws. There is no value in the standardization of international trade deals.
As to other countries being able to gain power under one circumstance so they can do it regardless... you're conflating intentionally facilitating a negative situation with someone obtaining that negative situation absent facilitation. This is logically invalid. Just because someone might get something if I'm STUPID enough to give them that situation for free on a platter like a fool... doesn't mean that they'd get that same situation regardless.
As to specifics... Canada for example would have very favorable trade deals with limited if any scrutiny of its day by day interactions with our economy. Other countries such as China or Russia or Iran or whatever would have more complicated checks and balances with a built in ability to apply leverage and pressure should there be foul play detected. The specifics would be specific to each nations trade interactions. Russia for example is mostly exchanging raw materials such as oil, lumber, etc. Where as China is mostly dealing in manufactured goods. And then you have Iran which tends to sell more to non-western countries but BUY from western countries things which it can neither buy nor sell from anyone but western countries. Leverage in each case would not be applied the same way because the given nations are interacting completely differently with the United States and our economy. So each country would have leverage applied differently.
Applying economic leverage on Russia is largely a matter of driving down the value or blocking off markets for their goods. Again, this is not something you do when Russia is behaving themselves but if they start getting cute with their interactions you can encourage US exports that compete with their goods to flow into markets they wish to sell in... this will drive down prices. You can also direct such goods into the international market in general which gives greater plausible deniability whilst also obtaining a reduction in their profits. If more extreme action is warranted, then you can start lobbying those markets directly either openly or secretly to switch off Russian products entirely or merely reduce the scale of the purchase.
That's a stick. You can also offer carrots in the form of encouraging Russian technological and industrial exports which is something Russia would very much like to shift to as it would help fund their industry which would be beneficial to the Russian state and economy in several manners.
Actually it isn't advocacy so much as an opinion that people would in general prefer condition 1 over condition 2.
Look... if you're going to be dishonest on top of being stupid and then on top of being an AC... that's three strikes.
Done and done and done. You struck out, Jr. Better luck next time.
The efficiency of negotiations assumes your labors as diplomats are expensive in the scheme of things. They're not.
What is more, we'd hire as many of you regardless of which way you negotiated it. So the entire effort and focus on your part is a nonsense.
Rather than going for CHEAPNESS you should instead go for QUALITY especially since your attempts to lower cost are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and the merits of BETTER deals vastly outstrips the non-existent and again... irrelevant savings of having a few fewer diplomats.
I do not mean to sound rude if I am coming off that way... I am merely baffled as to why you're so focused on saving money on negociations when there is no evidence that that has ever mattered.
We are talking about deals that involve TRILLIONS of dollars in trade. The savings of some few millions at most is laughable in that context. What is more, you won't even save that because as I've said... we'll hire the same number of people regardless.
Keep in mind, we have to have diplomats in EACH of these countries either way. So consolidating the talks doesn't avoid those people being employed. its a zero sum game.
You will hire them either way.
As to having a standard practice, no two nations are the same so attempting to have a standard deal to encompass non-standard circumstances is counter productive.
Counter... Productive.
Zero Sum... Game.
Consolidation has only one merit... and it isn't ours. Opposing powers can use join negotiations to force "US" to abide by contracts that we would otherwise not accept on an individual basis. That is to say... on top of the this being counter productive, not saving money, it also exposes us to additional risk with virtually no possibility of any upside what so ever.
its a bad idea. Don't do it.
Don't be pedantic... it just makes you sound shill and desperate. The context of my statement is very clear.
Regardless... you've made your choice. You're going to throw a fit.
Very well. Game point me.
Good day, sir.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/