That point is, how can someone be against something like abortion, but think it should be legal.
In a common law system, that which is not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Saying that X should be legal, though I disagree with it, is tantamount to saying that X should not be legislated against - not that X should be legislated permissively.
Depending on your market position, this may be a crime. If you're not a monopoly within the market, there is nothing illegal about artificially deflating your prices to drive customers to your business.
I'm sorry, attitudes like yours are why I never attend lectures. If the Professor isn't willing to discuss issues the students have with the material then he shouldn't be teaching.
Students can be horrible, but that doesn't mean that the Professor is presenting the material cogently. I have heard some rather stupid questions as well, but after hearing the Professor clarify it only serves to better educate me.
Is he supposed to stop lecture and debate every point with anyone who has a question, even if derails the course syllabus?
Yes. If someone has a question, then the Professor hasn't explained the material enough. The course syllabus is a guideline, not a hard rule, and following it to the letter is a pitiful way of presenting the material. As for the rest of your post, I made no assertion to suggest that the professor should change how the material is organised... I merely declared that the grandparent - being a neo-Napoleon dictator - was a pompous ass.
Yet you assume I was a pompous and self absorbed asshole because I removed a student who not only questioned my authority[...]
No, we assume you're a pompous ass, because you believe you have authority. With regards to teaching, you are paid for one purpose, to impart knowledge and to determine the student's grasp of that knowledge.
My point is that if the constitution grants rights it can revoke them. That isn't the case though, the only thing the constitution can do is grant power to the government to infringe on the rights of man. If the constitution were amended today to revoke the protection of the first amendment, we'd still have the right to free speech, because it is inately part of being human. Rights shouldn't arise out of government recognition.
According to US Code 26 2001, the tax is imposed on every transfer of taxable estate from US Citizen decedents. Furthermore, the law has no "minimum taxable amount", for inheritance less than $10,000 the tenative tax is 18%. Therefore, the middle class are inheriting enough to meet requirement to pay the Estate Tax.
The amount of the inheritance is immaterial. If the rich are prevented from leaving their descendents the fruit of their labour, they will pay quite handsomely to circumvent the laws. The middle class do not have that option, and so that means that the laws serve only to affect them.
An estate tax is a way of limiting the formation of a 'ruling class' in the form of a monetary aristocracy. There are trade-offs however.
Untrue, the estate tax is a way of limiting social mobility of the middle class. The aristocracy will always be able to circumvent restrictions on the movement of their capital to their heirs: one could set up trusts, establish a corporation solely for the purpose of holding your capital outside of your name, move the capital off-shore, hold the capital jointly amongst the family, or any number of other methods. Since it is trivial for the rich to keep the government off from their property, it stands to reason, then that the only real effect of the estate tax is to keep the middle class from raising their social class.
A toboggan is different from a sled. A sled is two metal rails connected by bits of wood for sitting. A toboggan, however, is a sheet of wood which curls up at the end.:)
Slashdot Mirror
That point is, how can someone be against something like abortion, but think it should be legal.
In a common law system, that which is not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Saying that X should be legal, though I disagree with it, is tantamount to saying that X should not be legislated against - not that X should be legislated permissively.
Get these mother-fucking snakes out of my mother-fucking robe!
Employing slave labour?
Slavery is a crime in every civilized nation.
Stealing what you sell?
Theft is a crime in every civilized nation.
Losing money just to undercut the other guy?
Depending on your market position, this may be a crime. If you're not a monopoly within the market, there is nothing illegal about artificially deflating your prices to drive customers to your business.
Private cameras aren't monitored by the government. They're inherently reactive, those in power don't get access to them unless a crime has occured.
Are you incapable of putting up your own cameras to defend your property?
Vous et une transvestite?
Yes, alles in ordnung!!! Complete poppy-cock, the most unruly, disorganised classes are oft the most engrossing.
I'm sorry, attitudes like yours are why I never attend lectures. If the Professor isn't willing to discuss issues the students have with the material then he shouldn't be teaching.
Why shouldn't someone ask an expert to clarify when they aren't sure about the material?
Students can be horrible, but that doesn't mean that the Professor is presenting the material cogently. I have heard some rather stupid questions as well, but after hearing the Professor clarify it only serves to better educate me.
Is he supposed to stop lecture and debate every point with anyone who has a question, even if derails the course syllabus?
Yes. If someone has a question, then the Professor hasn't explained the material enough. The course syllabus is a guideline, not a hard rule, and following it to the letter is a pitiful way of presenting the material. As for the rest of your post, I made no assertion to suggest that the professor should change how the material is organised... I merely declared that the grandparent - being a neo-Napoleon dictator - was a pompous ass.
Yet you assume I was a pompous and self absorbed asshole because I removed a student who not only questioned my authority[...]
No, we assume you're a pompous ass, because you believe you have authority. With regards to teaching, you are paid for one purpose, to impart knowledge and to determine the student's grasp of that knowledge.
My point is that if the constitution grants rights it can revoke them. That isn't the case though, the only thing the constitution can do is grant power to the government to infringe on the rights of man. If the constitution were amended today to revoke the protection of the first amendment, we'd still have the right to free speech, because it is inately part of being human. Rights shouldn't arise out of government recognition.
You are mistaken, the 9th and 10th Amendments establish that any rights not enumerated fall to the people or the states.
I referenced the law directly. You are referencing a chart sourced from a simulation.
According to US Code 26 2001, the tax is imposed on every transfer of taxable estate from US Citizen decedents. Furthermore, the law has no "minimum taxable amount", for inheritance less than $10,000 the tenative tax is 18%. Therefore, the middle class are inheriting enough to meet requirement to pay the Estate Tax.
The amount of the inheritance is immaterial. If the rich are prevented from leaving their descendents the fruit of their labour, they will pay quite handsomely to circumvent the laws. The middle class do not have that option, and so that means that the laws serve only to affect them.
The constitution does not guarantee rights, it merely restricts the powers of government.
An estate tax is a way of limiting the formation of a 'ruling class' in the form of a monetary aristocracy. There are trade-offs however.
Untrue, the estate tax is a way of limiting social mobility of the middle class. The aristocracy will always be able to circumvent restrictions on the movement of their capital to their heirs: one could set up trusts, establish a corporation solely for the purpose of holding your capital outside of your name, move the capital off-shore, hold the capital jointly amongst the family, or any number of other methods. Since it is trivial for the rich to keep the government off from their property, it stands to reason, then that the only real effect of the estate tax is to keep the middle class from raising their social class.
Dude... you can't even get Ash's name right, how can we trust you with the incantation to send the Deadites back to hell?
How much hobbier than your peers do you have to be that you're the hobbiest of them all?
Come on now, that's a rather unfair comparison to the pig community.
I know theres restraints because we're all human, but Legolas in the films doesn't seem able to run across snow drifts..
In the first movie, he does indeed walk atop the snow drifts on Carradras.
A toboggan is different from a sled. A sled is two metal rails connected by bits of wood for sitting. A toboggan, however, is a sheet of wood which curls up at the end. :)
It is not sinister.
Unless, perhaps, you're a left-handed stock-holder.