>Have a business? You extract a lot more value from the highway system than the guy that drives 10 miles to work a day.
You also pay a lot more than that guy in the form of gasoline taxes and toll road fees.
>unless you don't hire anything but illiterates for manual labor, nearly every worker you have has had 100k spent on their public education over at least 13 years
Property taxes pay for public schools in most states, and the more valuable your home or business is, the more taxes you pay.
>we all benefit from all these services to a greater or lesser degree, but who do you think uses more of these benefits proportionately
Those at the lower end of the income scale. They use far more government assistance than those at the higher end. Think of all the programs out there to help them - welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Proportionately, they get much more 'bang for the buck'.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
Screw that! I recently moved to Washington state and one of the factors for choosing it was definitely the lack of an income tax. If this gets passed and upheld in court (which is fairly unlikely), how long will it be before they lower the minimum so that everyone is paying the tax? On top of a 10% sales tax...
>Carbon dating the same artifact can return results that vary by 100,000's of years.
No, since the maximum age that carbon dating is useful for is less than 100,000 years, there is no way that it can vary by that much. Now, other methods of isotope dating can certainly vary by that much. For instance, uranium-238 to lead-206 dating is good for dating materials over billions and billions of years, so varying by a few hundred thousand years would be well (very well) within the margin of error.
>When has it ever been held that foreign nationals with no connection to our country other than the desire to destroy it whom aren't even captured on American soil have Constitutional Rights?
Why yes, the current supreme court has decided exactly that.
"A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.
Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants.""
Yes, they had them and they destroyed them all under the supervision of the UN. If you bothered to read anything at all that wasn't on Fox News in the runup to the Iraq war, you would know this. The UN even made them produce an accounting of what happened to the WMDs, and once they had, the US promptly ignored it and invaded anyway.
No, they die as a direct result of joining the armed forces when they know that they are going to be sent to fight a pointless 'war'. Also, publishing classified materials *is* protected free speech, though leaking them is not. Once a media source has them, there is nothing at all the government can do about it.
Like the US gives a damn about Afghan lives. Does anyone even have a clue how many innocent Afghans have been killed since the beginning of this 'war'? The most conservative estimates for Iraq are over 100,000 dead, and Afghanistan has gone on longer than Iraq, so it's probably even more. If you're not complaining just as loudly when a drone blows up a wedding over there, you're a hypocrite.
>The thing is, if you keep saying "I HAVE WMDS, GIMME MONEY OR ELSE!", eventually *somebody* is going to call your bluff.
Sure, but the thing is, they *didn't* say that. In fact, they were saying exactly the opposite.
"December 5, 2002..."The declaration will repeat that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction," Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, said at a news conference.
Iraq's denial that it possesses any such weapons puts it on a direct collision course with the United States, which insists it knows Iraq has them, demands a full and frank confession from Baghdad and warns it will disarm Iraq by force if necessary."
"Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, until his release to Canada.
The government of Canada ordered a commission of inquiry which concluded that he was tortured. The commission of inquiry publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism. The government of Canada later settled out of court with Arar and awarded him a C$10.5 million settlement. The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism."
>Yeah, I do have a question. How do you know this?
Exactly! The government has shown time and again that it will lie whenever it is convenient. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the Iranian either, but to accept the government's version of things without question is always a mistake.
Domestic wiretapping had required a warrant since the original FISA act was passed in 1978. It does not allow the widespread and wholesale tapping of phones and the internet that has happened since 9/11. If there is one thing that disgusts me about Obama, it's his utter and complete flip-flop on the domestic spying issue. As an early candidate for president, he was completely against it. Then when we had gotten the nomination, he voted to immunize telecoms for their part in the illegal wiretapping. Now as president, he completely defends the continued intrusion into all of our lives.
>But since a 14 year old can't exactly buy dry ice (at least not at the places I fill my CO2 tanks at) then she was supplying him- and if she wasn't supervising him doing this... there is a degree of recklessness that needs to be addressed.
You can buy dry ice at the ice cream shop near here, and you don't need to be any age to do so.
>In some states here in the US, you actually do have to answer reasonable questions from a police officer, which has caused all sorts of grief to the annoying twits that make up all sorts of rights that don't exist.
No, you don't. While some states may require you to show an id if asked, none require you to talk to an officer at all. You definitely shouldn't, either. It can only get you in trouble.
>The only danger to Assange is that he be arrested, held and tried like any other person who breaks the law.
Except for the fact that he hasn't broken any laws. Freedom of the press in the US is almost complete. As long as you aren't committing libel, there is very little the government can do to stop him from publishing whatever information he has. See the Pentagon Papers for a perfect example.
>WWII scenario: >Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?" >Sergeant: "What are they doing?" >Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out." >Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
Sure, that a good analogy. Now let's replace 'Nazi SS troops' with 'civilians' and 'trenches' with 'city streets'.
Iraq scenario: Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some civilians in the city streets. Shall we fire?" Sergeant: "What are they doing?" Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out." Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
Slashdot Mirror
>Have a business? You extract a lot more value from the highway system than the guy that drives 10 miles to work a day.
You also pay a lot more than that guy in the form of gasoline taxes and toll road fees.
>unless you don't hire anything but illiterates for manual labor, nearly every worker you have has had 100k spent on their public education over at least 13 years
Property taxes pay for public schools in most states, and the more valuable your home or business is, the more taxes you pay.
>we all benefit from all these services to a greater or lesser degree, but who do you think uses more of these benefits proportionately
Those at the lower end of the income scale. They use far more government assistance than those at the higher end. Think of all the programs out there to help them - welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Proportionately, they get much more 'bang for the buck'.
Washington state already has one of the highest sales taxes in the country. If they can't get by on that, start cutting government programs already.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
--Alexander Tytler
How is this a troll? He is exactly right. There is no way that this tax will stay limited to those making more than $200,000.
Screw that! I recently moved to Washington state and one of the factors for choosing it was definitely the lack of an income tax. If this gets passed and upheld in court (which is fairly unlikely), how long will it be before they lower the minimum so that everyone is paying the tax? On top of a 10% sales tax...
>anything that doesn't involve an MBA should be capped at $100k
Right, because MBAs are sooooo valuable to a company. *boggle*
>Carbon dating the same artifact can return results that vary by 100,000's of years.
No, since the maximum age that carbon dating is useful for is less than 100,000 years, there is no way that it can vary by that much. Now, other methods of isotope dating can certainly vary by that much. For instance, uranium-238 to lead-206 dating is good for dating materials over billions and billions of years, so varying by a few hundred thousand years would be well (very well) within the margin of error.
>When has it ever been held that foreign nationals with no connection to our country other than the desire to destroy it whom aren't even captured on American soil have Constitutional Rights?
Why yes, the current supreme court has decided exactly that.
"A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.
Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants.""
Was this before or after they shot into the building full of an unknown number of civilians?
Yes, they had them and they destroyed them all under the supervision of the UN. If you bothered to read anything at all that wasn't on Fox News in the runup to the Iraq war, you would know this. The UN even made them produce an accounting of what happened to the WMDs, and once they had, the US promptly ignored it and invaded anyway.
The tape is a perfect example of the banality of evil. Just a couple of tough guys in a helicopter wanting to kill someone.
No, they die as a direct result of joining the armed forces when they know that they are going to be sent to fight a pointless 'war'. Also, publishing classified materials *is* protected free speech, though leaking them is not. Once a media source has them, there is nothing at all the government can do about it.
Like the US gives a damn about Afghan lives. Does anyone even have a clue how many innocent Afghans have been killed since the beginning of this 'war'? The most conservative estimates for Iraq are over 100,000 dead, and Afghanistan has gone on longer than Iraq, so it's probably even more. If you're not complaining just as loudly when a drone blows up a wedding over there, you're a hypocrite.
>The thing is, if you keep saying "I HAVE WMDS, GIMME MONEY OR ELSE!", eventually *somebody* is going to call your bluff.
Sure, but the thing is, they *didn't* say that. In fact, they were saying exactly the opposite.
"December 5, 2002..."The declaration will repeat that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction," Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, said at a news conference.
Iraq's denial that it possesses any such weapons puts it on a direct collision course with the United States, which insists it knows Iraq has them, demands a full and frank confession from Baghdad and warns it will disarm Iraq by force if necessary."
Ask Maher Arar about that.
"Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, until his release to Canada.
The government of Canada ordered a commission of inquiry which concluded that he was tortured. The commission of inquiry publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism. The government of Canada later settled out of court with Arar and awarded him a C$10.5 million settlement. The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism."
>Yeah, I do have a question. How do you know this?
Exactly! The government has shown time and again that it will lie whenever it is convenient. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the Iranian either, but to accept the government's version of things without question is always a mistake.
Domestic wiretapping had required a warrant since the original FISA act was passed in 1978. It does not allow the widespread and wholesale tapping of phones and the internet that has happened since 9/11. If there is one thing that disgusts me about Obama, it's his utter and complete flip-flop on the domestic spying issue. As an early candidate for president, he was completely against it. Then when we had gotten the nomination, he voted to immunize telecoms for their part in the illegal wiretapping. Now as president, he completely defends the continued intrusion into all of our lives.
>But since a 14 year old can't exactly buy dry ice (at least not at the places I fill my CO2 tanks at) then she was supplying him- and if she wasn't supervising him doing this... there is a degree of recklessness that needs to be addressed.
You can buy dry ice at the ice cream shop near here, and you don't need to be any age to do so.
Is popping balloons also illegal in this neighborhood?
>In some states here in the US, you actually do have to answer reasonable questions from a police officer, which has caused all sorts of grief to the annoying twits that make up all sorts of rights that don't exist.
No, you don't. While some states may require you to show an id if asked, none require you to talk to an officer at all. You definitely shouldn't, either. It can only get you in trouble.
Charged != Convicted
They can accuse you of anything.
You should read up on The Pentagon Papers. We do have a free press in the US.
>The only danger to Assange is that he be arrested, held and tried like any other person who breaks the law.
Except for the fact that he hasn't broken any laws. Freedom of the press in the US is almost complete. As long as you aren't committing libel, there is very little the government can do to stop him from publishing whatever information he has. See the Pentagon Papers for a perfect example.
Sometimes a story only has one side.
>WWII scenario:
>Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?"
>Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
>Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
>Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
Sure, that a good analogy. Now let's replace 'Nazi SS troops' with 'civilians' and 'trenches' with 'city streets'.
Iraq scenario:
Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some civilians in the city streets. Shall we fire?"
Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
That sounds about right.