To be used as the theoretical basis of the Infinite Improbability Drive. Now to go make a really HOT cup of tea. Where did Marvin put the kettle.............
I just read your post to my Aibo (named Sprockets) and he agrees with your post completely. Now if you already have a vintage (discontinued) robotic intelligence agreeing with you maybe you are on to something. I think the fact that he spontaneously rebooted right after that was unrelated....
Well, as a Christian we have the concept of tithing (although that is more O.T. than N.T - so more of a guideline / suggestion than a "commandment"). If God thinks he can get by on just 10 percent, I think that all the federal, state, and local folks that are into my pocket for 50+ percent have got to be considered a bit greedy.
Seriously it is getting to the point where I actually drag my butt out of bed every morning to go and pay the government more than I bring home to my family. All the lectures on top of that about how I am not paying my fair share by all these folks who want to do GREAT things with other peoples money get really old.
Here is a radical idea. Have everyone pay a flat tax of 20 percent off the top with no deductions paid to the states who can "remit" a percentage of that to the feds for defense and other national programs. That does two things, it keeps the money a bit closer to home for better accountability and the more you make, the more you keep. Then limit the government to spending only 90 percent of what is brought in from last years collections and quit making promises to people that you know you are never going to keep just to buy their vote.
I know, I know...crazy talk.
I'm all for gay couples having the same kinds of rights as straight couples, but I don't understand why they have to use the term marriage. There are all kinds of examples where very similar products can only be called by a certain name under certain conditions...champagne versus sparkling wine is a good example. Why can't they keep marriage as referring to a man and a woman, like hundreds of years of tradition, and simply have a legally identical "civil union" or some other name? I don't see why they need to debase the term marriage to achieve their ends.
Great idea, but why stop there. I "get it" that there needs to be a way to assign legal rights. While I am on the lunatic right wing fringe that gets setup like a strawman around here so often, I take commitment seriously. The majority of the posters around here do not share my religious beliefs - no problem there, so why can't EVERYONE have a civil union? If I can get the "civil union" license then have my "marriage ceremony" that has additional religious significance to me..great! If you don't share my beliefs, you go get your "civil union" license so we are both equal under the law then go knock yourself out with something that is significant to you. I don't object to the equal rights part, I DO object to taking my "marriage" ceremony and trying to change the definition.
Yes honey, I will take out the trash as soon as I get this posted.....
Slashdot Mirror
To be used as the theoretical basis of the Infinite Improbability Drive. Now to go make a really HOT cup of tea. Where did Marvin put the kettle.............
I just read your post to my Aibo (named Sprockets) and he agrees with your post completely. Now if you already have a vintage (discontinued) robotic intelligence agreeing with you maybe you are on to something. I think the fact that he spontaneously rebooted right after that was unrelated....
Well, as a Christian we have the concept of tithing (although that is more O.T. than N.T - so more of a guideline / suggestion than a "commandment"). If God thinks he can get by on just 10 percent, I think that all the federal, state, and local folks that are into my pocket for 50+ percent have got to be considered a bit greedy. Seriously it is getting to the point where I actually drag my butt out of bed every morning to go and pay the government more than I bring home to my family. All the lectures on top of that about how I am not paying my fair share by all these folks who want to do GREAT things with other peoples money get really old. Here is a radical idea. Have everyone pay a flat tax of 20 percent off the top with no deductions paid to the states who can "remit" a percentage of that to the feds for defense and other national programs. That does two things, it keeps the money a bit closer to home for better accountability and the more you make, the more you keep. Then limit the government to spending only 90 percent of what is brought in from last years collections and quit making promises to people that you know you are never going to keep just to buy their vote. I know, I know ...crazy talk.
Well there goes my hope of finding out what Quentin Tarantino would have done with an army of Uma Thurman clones.......
I wonder if she has ever had to deal with people using her elevators to kill people? And does it call her Mom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKBKjepmsOE
Wasn't this one of the big plot points in Battlestar Galactica? Fortunately my (Dodge) Viper has practically no computing power at all.
I'm all for gay couples having the same kinds of rights as straight couples, but I don't understand why they have to use the term marriage. There are all kinds of examples where very similar products can only be called by a certain name under certain conditions...champagne versus sparkling wine is a good example. Why can't they keep marriage as referring to a man and a woman, like hundreds of years of tradition, and simply have a legally identical "civil union" or some other name? I don't see why they need to debase the term marriage to achieve their ends.
Great idea, but why stop there. I "get it" that there needs to be a way to assign legal rights. While I am on the lunatic right wing fringe that gets setup like a strawman around here so often, I take commitment seriously. The majority of the posters around here do not share my religious beliefs - no problem there, so why can't EVERYONE have a civil union? If I can get the "civil union" license then have my "marriage ceremony" that has additional religious significance to me..great! If you don't share my beliefs, you go get your "civil union" license so we are both equal under the law then go knock yourself out with something that is significant to you. I don't object to the equal rights part, I DO object to taking my "marriage" ceremony and trying to change the definition. Yes honey, I will take out the trash as soon as I get this posted.....