Just some friendly advice. Every male in Switzerland has to perform military service and so gun ownership is big. Yet you just said their homicide rate by firearms was low. You're making the argument it's culture not quantity of firearms.
Because citizens are not given rights by the U.S. Federal government, they only have rights taken away. The best way for me to have you picture it is thus: I have all my marbles. I own them and they were mine to begin with. I don't need you to give them to me. In this example you're the U.S. Federal government. For some reason you say some of my marbles are unsafe so you take some of my marbles. This is the exact opposite of most countries. Other countries start with all the marbles and provide them to citizens at the government's discretion. This is why your question is wrong, because I don't have to explain to the U.S. Federal government why I need rights that are already my own.
If you plan to ignore the Bill of Rights to fix America's violent behavior I'd start with the First Amendment and banning violence in media. I'm pretty sure they have more to do with violence in America than certain tools being in the hands of millions of Americans. BTW, that's just my suggestion to you given the least of two evils. I respect the Bill of Rights enough to not want to infringe on any of them.
Mars' global warming is exactly why we need common sense socio-economic mandates here on earth. I'm so glad to see that a lot of large tech news websites, like Wired and The Verge, spontaneously all wrote articles on the anniversary of "An Inconvenient Truth."
I think you've come to an important realization but unfortunately I don't think you understand it's for opposite economic reasons. A weak federal system, laissez faire capitalism, state governments enablement of industry all work. Obviously the United States of America have different shades of these issues but the closer any country gets to these principles the better.
At some point I hope people not living in the U.S. realize that the political opinions and parties that they think are horrible are why America prospers and their country doesn't.
Your opinion is probably a very common conception of your country. It's also why your country doesn't have the largest economy and why your country most likely relies on us to defend you with our military.
Using private email isn't illegal but having someone unwrap top secret emails and spreading them "for convenience" is. And a freedom of information request has stated that a criminal investigation is open by the FBI.
The Democratic response has been that since previous Republican Secretary of States had occasionally received government related emails on private email accounts it's okay for Secretary Clinton to purposely use an email server and internal aliases to circumvent freedom of information and electioneering laws.
I have no idea if Secretary Clinton will go to jail but if this was a Republican administration or if Secretary Clinton was practically anyone else she'd have been in jail.
Socialism inherently institutes totalitarianism because what if brother comrade X chooses to either not work or not work well. Capitalism innovated society by relying on laws that apply to everyone to dictate the rules for negotiating commerce. If I live under a socialist society and I decide I'm better off feeding off society what's my incentive to work other than coercion? Under capitalism I can just assume I'll eat less. Socialism brings out the worst in humans, which is the inherent urge to enslave others.
If you go to the store and purchase something, logically that is your property.
The main argument you're trying to suggest is that Republicans emotionally cling to their own property. I think that's inherent in sociology. Countries that have attempted to distort that inherent human interest have created less efficient humans (they'd rather not measure the decline in labor but China has dropped it's communal property strategies).
People get emotional when logic isn't available to support their opinion. It's all about the efficient use of labor. We can have six people who work for the Federal government watch one person who makes a billion. Imagine if those six people don't have Federal jobs and decide to innovate and hire others? Suddenly our economy starts to improve.
Ellen Pao was a venture capitalist, until she underperformed, per jury trial. Who thinks she embroiled Reddit in fixed wages controversy because of Kapital > Labor reasons or because of her lawsuit/feminism?
Because anthropomorphic global climate change activism was never actually about reversing the natural ebbs and flows in the planet's climate. It always was about a global political and economic system that is totalitarian in nature and socialis in economics.
University research funding is pretty straightforward, corporations, non-profits, and governments contribute money for research that supports their agenda. What's a little trickier is consulting fees paid to researchers. I think if we were to evenly investigate every climate scientist the climate alarmists would be the dirtier ones.
Because Capitalism causes the steady improvement of the lives of the poor. Any form of socialism hinders this progress, creates inefficiencies, and increases cronyism.
I have never read anything that hypothesized that poor Greece tried to leave the Euro but mean Europe made them borrow and keep overspending. Why would Greece ever choose to leave their sugar momma? The politicians in Greece scapegoated other countries to cover their failed socialist policies. Greece is going to have a hard reality when they aren't propped up by stable, fiscally responsible countries.
They cannot devalue the Euro any further. Real economics is not a laboratory so politically simple answers like devalue their currency does not work. Switzerland has already caught into the game and other countries would equally meet the Euro in devaluing their currency if it were so simple.
How does asking Greece to stop spending so much encourage them to spend more? They explicitly signed onto fiscal responsibility when they joined the Euro. The Euro has clear deficit thresholds which Greece violated.
Let's get something else straight. Greece is not a victim for Germany borrowing them money to save the Euro. Germany probably makes very little export sales to dead broke Greece already and Greece continues to hold Germany's fiscally responsible currency in a choke hold demanding more money
You don't get a man out of debt by lending more money to him and forcing him to accept it while following specific terms on how to make use of it.
Oh really? I thought that's exactly how borrowing worked regardless of Greece somehow being coerced into not meeting their huge payroll: 1. Person borrows money 2. The person giving the money sets terms and conditions on how the money is used and when it is paid back.
Greece is incapable of realizing that their form of socialism has not worked. They need free market reforms and a reduction in government. Even if they leave the Euro they cannot devalue their currency enough to fix their problems. Ask the Weimar Republic. I can't believe ninety year old failed policies are coming back into vogue. At least Germany remembers.
There is no more tax to be collected. Greece has suffered a liquidity drain because they aren't trusted to control their finances. Increased taxes on a dead economy only creates more inefficiencies, black markets, and lost revenue. Greece has only one option. Stop spending. Cancel pensions, eliminate most the government employees, enact free market liberalization. Greece won't do this so mommy Germany is going to have to finally cut their losses and shut off the trust fund.
So I've heard that the Greeks haven't enjoyed austerity. What they really don't like isn't austerity, it's living within their means. I hope Germany finally cuts out it's problem child. No economist in the world can save Greece from itself. Greece can't save itself from stopping austerity. That's like blaming your doctor for telling you to stop drinking with liver psoriasis. There are good and bad economists. Bad economists think they can control or even foresee the economy. A good economist whispers in the government's ear that they aren't immortal and can't fight market theory.
I was a law abiding citizen walking down the road. A police officer stopped me, frisked me, and denigrated me with no justification. Examples like that are why law abiding people have a fear of the police.
Unfortunately I feel your good idea would not be used to separate the legitimate need to enforce the speed laws compared to finding a way to raise more revenue. They'd probably keep the same amount of police officers and then raise another speeding department. Thus contributing to added expense and bureaucracy and forcing the speed department to justify their positions with increased ticketing.
Didn't you hear? Highway police officers have been transferred to state revenue agencies to better streamline their work. It's paying off big time. The millions of dollars they are raking in is almost paying for their pensions.
Mathematical question: if everyone drove 150 miles per hour in the same direction at what point would they collide? I'd suggest that the likelihood of an accident is higher from a driver not adapting to the speed of traffic than someone just speeding.
Slashdot Mirror
Just some friendly advice. Every male in Switzerland has to perform military service and so gun ownership is big. Yet you just said their homicide rate by firearms was low. You're making the argument it's culture not quantity of firearms.
Because citizens are not given rights by the U.S. Federal government, they only have rights taken away. The best way for me to have you picture it is thus: I have all my marbles. I own them and they were mine to begin with. I don't need you to give them to me. In this example you're the U.S. Federal government. For some reason you say some of my marbles are unsafe so you take some of my marbles. This is the exact opposite of most countries. Other countries start with all the marbles and provide them to citizens at the government's discretion. This is why your question is wrong, because I don't have to explain to the U.S. Federal government why I need rights that are already my own.
If you plan to ignore the Bill of Rights to fix America's violent behavior I'd start with the First Amendment and banning violence in media. I'm pretty sure they have more to do with violence in America than certain tools being in the hands of millions of Americans. BTW, that's just my suggestion to you given the least of two evils. I respect the Bill of Rights enough to not want to infringe on any of them.
Mars' global warming is exactly why we need common sense socio-economic mandates here on earth. I'm so glad to see that a lot of large tech news websites, like Wired and The Verge, spontaneously all wrote articles on the anniversary of "An Inconvenient Truth."
I think you've come to an important realization but unfortunately I don't think you understand it's for opposite economic reasons. A weak federal system, laissez faire capitalism, state governments enablement of industry all work. Obviously the United States of America have different shades of these issues but the closer any country gets to these principles the better.
At some point I hope people not living in the U.S. realize that the political opinions and parties that they think are horrible are why America prospers and their country doesn't.
Your opinion is probably a very common conception of your country. It's also why your country doesn't have the largest economy and why your country most likely relies on us to defend you with our military.
Using private email isn't illegal but having someone unwrap top secret emails and spreading them "for convenience" is. And a freedom of information request has stated that a criminal investigation is open by the FBI.
The Democratic response has been that since previous Republican Secretary of States had occasionally received government related emails on private email accounts it's okay for Secretary Clinton to purposely use an email server and internal aliases to circumvent freedom of information and electioneering laws.
I have no idea if Secretary Clinton will go to jail but if this was a Republican administration or if Secretary Clinton was practically anyone else she'd have been in jail.
Socialism inherently institutes totalitarianism because what if brother comrade X chooses to either not work or not work well. Capitalism innovated society by relying on laws that apply to everyone to dictate the rules for negotiating commerce. If I live under a socialist society and I decide I'm better off feeding off society what's my incentive to work other than coercion? Under capitalism I can just assume I'll eat less. Socialism brings out the worst in humans, which is the inherent urge to enslave others.
The main argument you're trying to suggest is that Republicans emotionally cling to their own property. I think that's inherent in sociology. Countries that have attempted to distort that inherent human interest have created less efficient humans (they'd rather not measure the decline in labor but China has dropped it's communal property strategies).
People get emotional when logic isn't available to support their opinion. It's all about the efficient use of labor. We can have six people who work for the Federal government watch one person who makes a billion. Imagine if those six people don't have Federal jobs and decide to innovate and hire others? Suddenly our economy starts to improve.
Thanks Anon!
Ellen Pao was a venture capitalist, until she underperformed, per jury trial. Who thinks she embroiled Reddit in fixed wages controversy because of Kapital > Labor reasons or because of her lawsuit/feminism?
Because anthropomorphic global climate change activism was never actually about reversing the natural ebbs and flows in the planet's climate. It always was about a global political and economic system that is totalitarian in nature and socialis in economics.
University research funding is pretty straightforward, corporations, non-profits, and governments contribute money for research that supports their agenda. What's a little trickier is consulting fees paid to researchers. I think if we were to evenly investigate every climate scientist the climate alarmists would be the dirtier ones.
Ancient Greece, capitalistic democracy. Super uncivil. /sarcasm
Because Capitalism causes the steady improvement of the lives of the poor. Any form of socialism hinders this progress, creates inefficiencies, and increases cronyism.
I have never read anything that hypothesized that poor Greece tried to leave the Euro but mean Europe made them borrow and keep overspending. Why would Greece ever choose to leave their sugar momma? The politicians in Greece scapegoated other countries to cover their failed socialist policies. Greece is going to have a hard reality when they aren't propped up by stable, fiscally responsible countries.
How does asking Greece to stop spending so much encourage them to spend more? They explicitly signed onto fiscal responsibility when they joined the Euro. The Euro has clear deficit thresholds which Greece violated.
Let's get something else straight. Greece is not a victim for Germany borrowing them money to save the Euro. Germany probably makes very little export sales to dead broke Greece already and Greece continues to hold Germany's fiscally responsible currency in a choke hold demanding more money
You don't get a man out of debt by lending more money to him and forcing him to accept it while following specific terms on how to make use of it.
Oh really? I thought that's exactly how borrowing worked regardless of Greece somehow being coerced into not meeting their huge payroll: 1. Person borrows money 2. The person giving the money sets terms and conditions on how the money is used and when it is paid back.
Greece is incapable of realizing that their form of socialism has not worked. They need free market reforms and a reduction in government. Even if they leave the Euro they cannot devalue their currency enough to fix their problems. Ask the Weimar Republic. I can't believe ninety year old failed policies are coming back into vogue. At least Germany remembers.
There is no more tax to be collected. Greece has suffered a liquidity drain because they aren't trusted to control their finances. Increased taxes on a dead economy only creates more inefficiencies, black markets, and lost revenue. Greece has only one option. Stop spending. Cancel pensions, eliminate most the government employees, enact free market liberalization. Greece won't do this so mommy Germany is going to have to finally cut their losses and shut off the trust fund.
So I've heard that the Greeks haven't enjoyed austerity. What they really don't like isn't austerity, it's living within their means. I hope Germany finally cuts out it's problem child. No economist in the world can save Greece from itself. Greece can't save itself from stopping austerity. That's like blaming your doctor for telling you to stop drinking with liver psoriasis. There are good and bad economists. Bad economists think they can control or even foresee the economy. A good economist whispers in the government's ear that they aren't immortal and can't fight market theory.
I was a law abiding citizen walking down the road. A police officer stopped me, frisked me, and denigrated me with no justification. Examples like that are why law abiding people have a fear of the police.
Unfortunately I feel your good idea would not be used to separate the legitimate need to enforce the speed laws compared to finding a way to raise more revenue. They'd probably keep the same amount of police officers and then raise another speeding department. Thus contributing to added expense and bureaucracy and forcing the speed department to justify their positions with increased ticketing.
Didn't you hear? Highway police officers have been transferred to state revenue agencies to better streamline their work. It's paying off big time. The millions of dollars they are raking in is almost paying for their pensions.
Mathematical question: if everyone drove 150 miles per hour in the same direction at what point would they collide? I'd suggest that the likelihood of an accident is higher from a driver not adapting to the speed of traffic than someone just speeding.
Omg, upmod pls.