Considering that women have been there all along, and that many of the men are not the basement dwelling or unloved stereotypes you claim, I conclude you're full of it. and your last paragraph pretty much seals the deal.
Um...by definition "overtaxing" means you took in more money than you needed, ie, a surplus, which is the opposite of a deficit. A deficit means you spent more than you took in, which means you undertaxed.
You cant even get your basic terminology and concepts right, and you expect us to believe you have something intelligent to say?
Foaming at the mouth ideology, disconnected from any actual facts or reality. The US has a much more private healthcare system than pretty much all of Europe. We ARE the private health care system you fetishize. And it's horrible. The cost/benefit ration is way out of whack.
Yet all those European state run national healthcare systems are both cheaper than the US system (spending as much as 40% LESS per person) while providing better care.
Actually Singapore healthcare is among the most highly regulated in the world.
you are confusing insurance and care. the insurance is a 3 tier system, with varying levels of public or private sources. but the care is extremely regulated, including strict price controls.
Libertarianism: where we read books on the nature and history of man, law, and society, and simply ignore the parts we don't like, secure int he belief that those parts weren't important. Where we also believe that Democracy is illegitimate because people disagree with me, therefore the solution isn't rational discourse or persuasion....but anarchy.
Libertarianism: a past failed experiment that Bat S Crazy people keep thinking just has to work the next time around.
this is why I keep saying it: Libertarianism (as expressed by most individuals) is simply ignorance of history, of human society, which will inevitably recreate the same society and government it seeks to replace.
the very idea that it must raise the costs of energy is a fallacy. as is the ide that we must "deindustrialize".
we don't HAVE to have a world of scarce energy. your view is shaped by the scarcity based economy.
but we don't actually have a scarcity of energy. more energy lands on the earth from the sun in one HOUR than all of humanity consumes in a year.
we need only capture a very small fraction of that to completely satiate the energy needs of the entire world. in fact it very likely the first required step in elimination the scarcity economy and entering the post-scarcity existence.
as for murray salby, he's a kook and nothing he says is worth listening to.
SS is one of the most reputable climate science sites around, and links to actual scientific papers from actual scientists. Most of the major players, including the IPCC, recognize the site for its well curated database of scientific information and accessibility to the layperson.
calling it "disreputable" says more about you than the site.
Nutshell: capitalists make the most money when there is a healthy and vibrant middle class. But the middle class does not exist on its own, as the free market and sheer human nature, both naturally tend to eliminate it. So the middle class also requires government to exist.
And there's the LLC laws, property rights, basic law and order, bankruptcy laws, stable currency, infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, communications, internet), banking regulation and insurance....
the list is quite large, and really the number of ways in which capitalism benefits from and needs government to exist is extensive.
At this point I must conclude that you are simply a Deep Cover Liberal. The things you say are so ignorant, and so disconnected from reality, it's the only logical conclusion. note, that the very idea of a DCL presupposes that even conservatives have a lower limit on intelligence, below which even they don't fall. IE, no one can be as stupid as you and still function. it has to be an act.
Because, while gun nuts like to pretend that criminals will just "magically get guns and ignore all laws", guns don't actually just magically pop into existence.
and it's well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation. Its the primary source of black market weapons, weapons that come into the hands of drug dealers and other criminal enterprises.
cause there never was a real ban. seriously, most of the things you've said in this entire thread are made up BS. you simply do not know the facts of the issue.
Yes. The answer is "very little". Hard pressed? It's harder to obtain, own, and operate a car than a gun in this country. Hell, it's harder to vote than obtain a gun.
Oh shutup. And the idiots modded you insightful too...
It's well known that gun shows and other large scale "private party sales" (cause face it, half the people there are gun dealers, not just private parties) are a popular way of getting around gun legislation. The infamous "gun show loophole".
It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.
Want to stop black market guns? Close the loop hole. Stop straw purchases. And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.
The word of SCOTUS by definition makes something Constitutional.
Owning slaves WAS Constitutional under the laws at the time. The law presupposed that humans could be owned as property. The finding of SCOTUS, while morally reprehensible, was within the boundaries of the law.
That's why we went back and changed the root law as stated in the Constitution to outlaw slavery.
In the last year, when talking about science, something like 86% of the people the news talks to about it are non-scientists. Only about 14% of the people talked to were scientists.
Fox News is especially bad about, talking to a scientists something less than 4% of the time.
But then Fox News is the channel that presents opinion as "news" and runs ads about the coming apocalypse, faith healing, and various medical and financial scams.
to be aboslutely clear, their jobs are not dependent on federal grants and grants are not dependent on outcome. even saying that is the rankest ingorance.
In the last year, when talking about science, something like 86% of the people the news talks to about it are non-scientists. Only about 14% of the people talked to were scientists.
Fox News is especially bad about, talking to a scientists something less than 4% of the time.
But then Fox News is the channel that presents opinion as "news" and runs ads about the coming apocalypse, faith healing, and various medical and financial scams.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that women have been there all along, and that many of the men are not the basement dwelling or unloved stereotypes you claim, I conclude you're full of it. and your last paragraph pretty much seals the deal.
Um...by definition "overtaxing" means you took in more money than you needed, ie, a surplus, which is the opposite of a deficit.
A deficit means you spent more than you took in, which means you undertaxed.
You cant even get your basic terminology and concepts right, and you expect us to believe you have something intelligent to say?
Foaming at the mouth ideology, disconnected from any actual facts or reality. The US has a much more private healthcare system than pretty much all of Europe. We ARE the private health care system you fetishize. And it's horrible. The cost/benefit ration is way out of whack.
Yet all those European state run national healthcare systems are both cheaper than the US system (spending as much as 40% LESS per person) while providing better care.
That is reality.
That is facts.
Then please feel free to stop driving on my roads, going to my schools, enjoying the safety granted by my food inspectors and military and police.
Actually Singapore healthcare is among the most highly regulated in the world.
you are confusing insurance and care.
the insurance is a 3 tier system, with varying levels of public or private sources.
but the care is extremely regulated, including strict price controls.
Libertarianism: where we read books on the nature and history of man, law, and society, and simply ignore the parts we don't like, secure int he belief that those parts weren't important. Where we also believe that Democracy is illegitimate because people disagree with me, therefore the solution isn't rational discourse or persuasion....but anarchy.
Libertarianism: a past failed experiment that Bat S Crazy people keep thinking just has to work the next time around.
this is why I keep saying it: Libertarianism (as expressed by most individuals) is simply ignorance of history, of human society, which will inevitably recreate the same society and government it seeks to replace.
the very idea that it must raise the costs of energy is a fallacy.
as is the ide that we must "deindustrialize".
we don't HAVE to have a world of scarce energy.
your view is shaped by the scarcity based economy.
but we don't actually have a scarcity of energy.
more energy lands on the earth from the sun in one HOUR than all of humanity consumes in a year.
we need only capture a very small fraction of that to completely satiate the energy needs of the entire world.
in fact it very likely the first required step in elimination the scarcity economy and entering the post-scarcity existence.
as for murray salby, he's a kook and nothing he says is worth listening to.
SS is one of the most reputable climate science sites around, and links to actual scientific papers from actual scientists.
Most of the major players, including the IPCC, recognize the site for its well curated database of scientific information and accessibility to the layperson.
calling it "disreputable" says more about you than the site.
you do realize that it is government that enables capitalism to exist right?
that without it, capitalism wouldn't exist?
ah, but you're confusing the free market and capitalism.
you see, they aren't the same thing.
Read and be enlightened.
"Capitalism requires government"
http://www.governmentisgood.co...
Nutshell: capitalists make the most money when there is a healthy and vibrant middle class. But the middle class does not exist on its own, as the free market and sheer human nature, both naturally tend to eliminate it. So the middle class also requires government to exist.
And there's the LLC laws, property rights, basic law and order, bankruptcy laws, stable currency, infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, communications, internet), banking regulation and insurance....
the list is quite large, and really the number of ways in which capitalism benefits from and needs government to exist is extensive.
At this point I must conclude that you are simply a Deep Cover Liberal.
The things you say are so ignorant, and so disconnected from reality, it's the only logical conclusion.
note, that the very idea of a DCL presupposes that even conservatives have a lower limit on intelligence, below which even they don't fall.
IE, no one can be as stupid as you and still function. it has to be an act.
(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deep_cover_liberal)
there are so many builtin yet faulty assumptions in your post that once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about.
Because, while gun nuts like to pretend that criminals will just "magically get guns and ignore all laws", guns don't actually just magically pop into existence.
and it's well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation. Its the primary source of black market weapons, weapons that come into the hands of drug dealers and other criminal enterprises.
cause there never was a real ban.
seriously, most of the things you've said in this entire thread are made up BS.
you simply do not know the facts of the issue.
Yes. The answer is "very little".
Hard pressed?
It's harder to obtain, own, and operate a car than a gun in this country.
Hell, it's harder to vote than obtain a gun.
Oh shutup.
And the idiots modded you insightful too...
It's well known that gun shows and other large scale "private party sales" (cause face it, half the people there are gun dealers, not just private parties) are a popular way of getting around gun legislation. The infamous "gun show loophole".
It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.
Want to stop black market guns?
Close the loop hole.
Stop straw purchases.
And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.
You stated facts and they modded you troll.
Looks like the slashbertarians have mod point this morning.
And you idiots modded this idiot insightful?
The word of SCOTUS by definition makes something Constitutional.
Owning slaves WAS Constitutional under the laws at the time.
The law presupposed that humans could be owned as property.
The finding of SCOTUS, while morally reprehensible, was within the boundaries of the law.
That's why we went back and changed the root law as stated in the Constitution to outlaw slavery.
the greens are as different from dems as dems are from reps.
The cost of raising ALL of walmarts employees
to 15$/hr minimum wage works to the typical family spending 46$ per year extra.
oh the humanity....
or the top executives can take a 5% pay cut. ...the horror!
(you can mod it down, but its a fact)
In the last year, when talking about science, something like 86% of the people the news talks to about it are non-scientists.
Only about 14% of the people talked to were scientists.
Fox News is especially bad about, talking to a scientists something less than 4% of the time.
But then Fox News is the channel that presents opinion as "news" and runs ads about the coming apocalypse, faith healing, and various medical and financial scams.
to be aboslutely clear, their jobs are not dependent on federal grants and grants are not dependent on outcome. even saying that is the rankest ingorance.
that's not what it said and you bloody know it, troll.
It said "food grown with pestidies are safe to eat", not "pesticides are safe to eat".
those are two completely different things.
In the last year, when talking about science, something like 86% of the people the news talks to about it are non-scientists.
Only about 14% of the people talked to were scientists.
Fox News is especially bad about, talking to a scientists something less than 4% of the time.
But then Fox News is the channel that presents opinion as "news" and runs ads about the coming apocalypse, faith healing, and various medical and financial scams.
Why have experts if you're not going to believe them?
The key point about scientific experts is that can someone CAN potentially disprove them, unlike the priests of a religion.