The ones that don't care should be removed from the voting pool.
The solution I like is to remove all names from ballots. The voter must write in the legal name of the politician next to the office title. If you don't even know how to spell the person's name, why are you voting?
Some acomodations would have to be made for the disabled of course...such as a transcriptionist (sp?). But the gist of the idea is that people that don't care enough to look at who is running, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The US government isn't so idiotic as to hand out a fixed amount of cash for meeting some nebulous metric (ie. electric car). I don't know the specifics of the electric car tax credit, but I'm willing to bet it's a PERCENTAGE of the purchase price, which tops-out at 7500 (so they don't encourage purchasing an electric Hummer).
I agree. I found the only use for corporal punishment was to establish who is ultimately in control. The "timeout" gag is useful, but what happens when you put the child in timeout and they say, "No." One pop on the rear end, look them straight in the eye and ask, "Do you really want to fight about it?" Call it brutal if you want, but that is exactly how the real world operates. Try telling the police some time to go away cause you'll smoke anything you damn well please. You'll quickly understand that a polite "yes sir" is more comfortable that a knee in your neck.
What this guy did is just completely counterproductive, though. He did not establish his authority. He undermined it. He demonstrated that he has absolutely no control over his emotions and can be manipulated by a 16yr old girl. It would have been much more effective to just calmly take the computer from her room and say, "Oh, well. We will let you log in to do your homework when we can watch you."
Interesting, but pointless questions. The fact is that people expect a higher standard of living than they did in the 70's, with "standard of living" being defined as "surrounded by more stuff".
Believe it or not, we have other things in the house that use electricity. I said "$400 light bill", not "$400 for just the lights".
Which begs the question: I know lights were the big driver of the early adoption of domestic electricity, but why do we all still call it the "light bill"?
For there to be any basis, there would have to be an amendment. The people would have to agree to grant that power to the governing bodies. The fact that no such amendment exists gives the lie to the idea that we live in the freest nation in the world. We have the freedoms a totalitarian government decides we can have...which means we're not free at all.
don't bother following their logic. It is a wild goose chase. X is better, or not as bad as Y is not the point. Never was the point.
The point is the Federal Government was never granted the power to eradicate a naturally occurring weed from America. The Federal government was never granted the power to determine what I eat, drink, smoke or who I have sex with or when.
It's worth noting that marijuana has been used by the last three presidents of the US for recreational purposes. At this point, it's hypocritical nonsense to continue with the ban on marijuana.
Probably more worth noting that it was used openly by most of the first.
But what if the "lawmaker" hasn't been granted the permission by the people to write the law in the first place? Is it legit for a group of 500 or so to decide every minutia of how 600million of us shall conduct our daily lives? What if they decide that leather soled shoes are illegal? At what point can I say, "I want to do this, and it's none of your damn business!"
Contrary to what you're limited mind can comprehend, this is the most important and central philosophical governance question of every generation.
The correct question to ask is "is it more addictive, or is addiction to it more harmful to the victim or others, than other legal substances?"
No, the correct question to ask is, "Who gave you permission to decide if I can make use an addictive substance or not?"
If we, as a society, feel that it is a job that should be handled at the federal level, we amend the Constitution to explicitly give the federal government the power to regulate it. Anything else should just be seen as a power grab by a central government.
Except it isn't tropical levels. That insinuates warm, moderately moist, and therefore comfortable air. The heater produce dry, desert, "make the booger so hard they cut you nose and give you nosebleeds" air.
In the state of North Carolina in the USA, the building codes require a dual zone in houses over 2000ft^2. I have a 2400ft^2 house with an open floor plan. The upstairs thermostat is at the top of the stairs. The downstairs thermostat is at the bottom of the stairs. In the winter, my wife will crank the heat up to 80 downstairs. Then my sons upstairs will turn the thermostat up there onto AC and crank it down to 60. Both will leave for the day with it like that and leave it running.
They are all confused when I come home from working all day to pay for it all and am completely irate.
You've never spent a week with my wife. She will persistently wait for the thermostats trip time, move it to 80 in the dead of winter, then leave the house for the day. In the summer, she will set it to 60. No friggin' joke, I have literally given up on this battle.
Slashdot Mirror
Or try to get away from Wall Street protestors.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conservatives-trapped-by-occupy-dc-claim-9-1-1-operators-hung-up-on-them-4-times/
Or maybe just returning to having Senate seats being appointed by State legislatures. Seams to get at the root cause much faster.
The ones that don't care should be removed from the voting pool.
The solution I like is to remove all names from ballots. The voter must write in the legal name of the politician next to the office title. If you don't even know how to spell the person's name, why are you voting?
Some acomodations would have to be made for the disabled of course...such as a transcriptionist (sp?). But the gist of the idea is that people that don't care enough to look at who is running, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The US government isn't so idiotic as to hand out a fixed amount of cash for meeting some nebulous metric (ie. electric car). I don't know the specifics of the electric car tax credit, but I'm willing to bet it's a PERCENTAGE of the purchase price, which tops-out at 7500 (so they don't encourage purchasing an electric Hummer).
Really? They wouldn't be that stupid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVmBBtLGg2s&feature=related
--facepalm--
I agree. I found the only use for corporal punishment was to establish who is ultimately in control. The "timeout" gag is useful, but what happens when you put the child in timeout and they say, "No." One pop on the rear end, look them straight in the eye and ask, "Do you really want to fight about it?" Call it brutal if you want, but that is exactly how the real world operates. Try telling the police some time to go away cause you'll smoke anything you damn well please. You'll quickly understand that a polite "yes sir" is more comfortable that a knee in your neck.
What this guy did is just completely counterproductive, though. He did not establish his authority. He undermined it. He demonstrated that he has absolutely no control over his emotions and can be manipulated by a 16yr old girl. It would have been much more effective to just calmly take the computer from her room and say, "Oh, well. We will let you log in to do your homework when we can watch you."
They should take a lesson from Microsoft:
KGB-ME.
Yes. Just bad for people.
Interesting, but pointless questions. The fact is that people expect a higher standard of living than they did in the 70's, with "standard of living" being defined as "surrounded by more stuff".
Believe it or not, we have other things in the house that use electricity. I said "$400 light bill", not "$400 for just the lights".
Which begs the question: I know lights were the big driver of the early adoption of domestic electricity, but why do we all still call it the "light bill"?
For there to be any basis, there would have to be an amendment. The people would have to agree to grant that power to the governing bodies. The fact that no such amendment exists gives the lie to the idea that we live in the freest nation in the world. We have the freedoms a totalitarian government decides we can have...which means we're not free at all.
Funny that. Lot's of right-to-work States in the US explicitly outlaw forcing a person to join a union. Works well for us.
Exactly what is a union other than a monopoly on labor anyway?
Isn't this, printing money, really just a backdoor way of not paying the debt?
don't bother following their logic. It is a wild goose chase. X is better, or not as bad as Y is not the point. Never was the point.
The point is the Federal Government was never granted the power to eradicate a naturally occurring weed from America. The Federal government was never granted the power to determine what I eat, drink, smoke or who I have sex with or when.
It's worth noting that marijuana has been used by the last three presidents of the US for recreational purposes. At this point, it's hypocritical nonsense to continue with the ban on marijuana.
Probably more worth noting that it was used openly by most of the first.
But what if the "lawmaker" hasn't been granted the permission by the people to write the law in the first place? Is it legit for a group of 500 or so to decide every minutia of how 600million of us shall conduct our daily lives? What if they decide that leather soled shoes are illegal? At what point can I say, "I want to do this, and it's none of your damn business!"
Contrary to what you're limited mind can comprehend, this is the most important and central philosophical governance question of every generation.
But, they are studying the plant to see if Pfizer can isolate and patent any of the components.
How is a Congress controlled in both houses by your own party considered "hostile"?
"Difficult to properly audit"? What, versus making every individual in the US a tax account for two weeks each year?
The correct question to ask is "is it more addictive, or is addiction to it more harmful to the victim or others, than other legal substances?"
No, the correct question to ask is, "Who gave you permission to decide if I can make use an addictive substance or not?"
If we, as a society, feel that it is a job that should be handled at the federal level, we amend the Constitution to explicitly give the federal government the power to regulate it. Anything else should just be seen as a power grab by a central government.
And some in the TEA Parties are asking Bachmann to throw in the towel.
Except it isn't tropical levels. That insinuates warm, moderately moist, and therefore comfortable air. The heater produce dry, desert, "make the booger so hard they cut you nose and give you nosebleeds" air.
You now have to share. How did you do this?
Zones can be stupid to.
In the state of North Carolina in the USA, the building codes require a dual zone in houses over 2000ft^2. I have a 2400ft^2 house with an open floor plan. The upstairs thermostat is at the top of the stairs. The downstairs thermostat is at the bottom of the stairs. In the winter, my wife will crank the heat up to 80 downstairs. Then my sons upstairs will turn the thermostat up there onto AC and crank it down to 60. Both will leave for the day with it like that and leave it running.
They are all confused when I come home from working all day to pay for it all and am completely irate.
You've never spent a week with my wife. She will persistently wait for the thermostats trip time, move it to 80 in the dead of winter, then leave the house for the day. In the summer, she will set it to 60. No friggin' joke, I have literally given up on this battle.
You, obviously, do not know about my diet.