Yeah, people like to call all kinds of things the other political team does "fraud" and such. It helps them justify whatever nasty behavior they want their team to engage in.
Ok, well you really seem to support blacklisting people from employment based on their politics, but I understand why you don't want to say it outright.
It's one thing to do a little evil for the team, or to look the other way for evil, or even to cheer for evil like you seem to be doing here. It's another thing to formally, publicly pledge allegiance to evil.
Maybe when you're done fooling and you're sober you'll be able to make a clear choice. No need to tell us what it is. Someone who is against blacklisting people from employment has no problem saying so. Someone who is in favor of blacklisting might not want to tell anyone -- because of the whole evil thing.
We have an asthmatic child and live on an island. Should we keep extra athsma inhalers around? Nah. We'll just rely on other people using almost-futuristic technology to deliver medicine at the last possible second. That's the best approach.
They don't expect items to magically appear to get people what they need. They do not care what people need or whether needy people get it.
It's about exploiting emotional situations to divide people against each other or against a designated enemy. Then you can lead the divided people to fight against their neighbors or to hunt a witch or whatever. Leaders get power and advance their agenda. The led get nothing (at best).
How do they write an algorithm to predict whiny moralizing?
Here's a prediction: giving in or otherwise rewarding whiny moralizers will cause more people to whine and moralize about everything, all the time. The algorithm can then predict it to happen 100% of the time.
Every time. Appealing to the entitlement mentality is evergreen. When will we decide to stop listening to people who have nothing to offer anyone but complaints?
Cats, deer, and wild horses generally won't climb walls and crawl into your house. And they don't share rats' long history of spreading disease and eating grain from storage containers. Deer are food. Horses can be tamed and used to do valuable work. Cats can be tamed and used to protect grain from rodents.
Careful to avoid being "ignorant". Not knowing how things work but believing the good people is "enlightened". Not knowing how things work and believing the bad people is "ignorant". Don't be "ignorant".
If people ever figured out what the real cost of services would be the very first thing they would do is go cry to the government for regulation because it's too expensive.
Citation needed.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing?
Another dumb statement.You don't enjoy a civilisation at the bring of collapse. You're in a first world country and enjoying the many benefits that includes.
Not a statement. I didn't bring up civilization collapse. I was responding to someone else who did. I was asking what his point was bringing it up.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century.
Why did governments kill those people? Shits and giggles or to preserve a certain way of life?
I don't understand the question. I'm sure you're not trying to justify governments committing genocides. But I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The answer to "why did they...?" is always "because they wanted to, and because they could".
Maine added a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children to get food stamps and 75% of those recipients dropped out of the program rather than do volunteer work 6 hours per week.
We're not giving them enough to get out of poverty.
The ability to get out of poverty and stay out of poverty tends to require something that can't be given to people. You can't give someone good health and you can't give them the fortitude to go to work and do a job every day.
A ruling to apply tax law as it was written and enacted isn't a "deal".
The first quote doesn't appear at the link you specify. The second doesn't describe a "deal", only a ruling. The third quote may or may not -- it is paywalled.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It's more like "my kid sometimes needs a specific medicine, maybe I should be sure to bring some along".
Yeah, people like to call all kinds of things the other political team does "fraud" and such. It helps them justify whatever nasty behavior they want their team to engage in.
Thanks! Just trying to do my part, arguing against blacklisting people from employment based on their politics.
Apparently your point is that right and wrong don't matter, what matters is which team you're on.
Ok, well you really seem to support blacklisting people from employment based on their politics, but I understand why you don't want to say it outright.
It's one thing to do a little evil for the team, or to look the other way for evil, or even to cheer for evil like you seem to be doing here. It's another thing to formally, publicly pledge allegiance to evil.
Maybe when you're done fooling and you're sober you'll be able to make a clear choice. No need to tell us what it is. Someone who is against blacklisting people from employment has no problem saying so. Someone who is in favor of blacklisting might not want to tell anyone -- because of the whole evil thing.
no. Now answer my question: Do you support blacklisting people from employment based on their politics?
Still not answering the question. Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey from employment, or don't you? It's an important question.
Yeah, having asthma medication around when you need it is for losers.
Just to be clear, you are supporting blacklisting people from employment. Is that correct?
That doesn't answer the question. Do you support blacklisting him or don't you?
We have an asthmatic child and live on an island. Should we keep extra athsma inhalers around? Nah. We'll just rely on other people using almost-futuristic technology to deliver medicine at the last possible second. That's the best approach.
"If I disapprove, it's not speech." Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey and others like him, Bruce Perens?
Just like the Hollywod Blacklist was fair?
And so, in the name of "tolerance", they consigned heterodox unbelievers to a blacklist.
Palmer Lucky is Brendon Eich 2.0.
They don't expect items to magically appear to get people what they need. They do not care what people need or whether needy people get it.
It's about exploiting emotional situations to divide people against each other or against a designated enemy. Then you can lead the divided people to fight against their neighbors or to hunt a witch or whatever. Leaders get power and advance their agenda. The led get nothing (at best).
How do they write an algorithm to predict whiny moralizing?
Here's a prediction: giving in or otherwise rewarding whiny moralizers will cause more people to whine and moralize about everything, all the time. The algorithm can then predict it to happen 100% of the time.
You feel bad about something, therefore other people should work for you for free.
Every time. Appealing to the entitlement mentality is evergreen. When will we decide to stop listening to people who have nothing to offer anyone but complaints?
The government people overseeing the project got to keep 100% of their paychecks.
Cats, deer, and wild horses generally won't climb walls and crawl into your house. And they don't share rats' long history of spreading disease and eating grain from storage containers. Deer are food. Horses can be tamed and used to do valuable work. Cats can be tamed and used to protect grain from rodents.
Careful to avoid being "ignorant". Not knowing how things work but believing the good people is "enlightened". Not knowing how things work and believing the bad people is "ignorant". Don't be "ignorant".
If people ever figured out what the real cost of services would be the very first thing they would do is go cry to the government for regulation because it's too expensive.
Citation needed.
Are you arguing for the absolute minimum taxes needed to keep civilization from collapsing?
Another dumb statement.You don't enjoy a civilisation at the bring of collapse. You're in a first world country and enjoying the many benefits that includes.
Not a statement. I didn't bring up civilization collapse. I was responding to someone else who did. I was asking what his point was bringing it up.
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people governments killed in the 20th century.
Why did governments kill those people? Shits and giggles or to preserve a certain way of life?
I don't understand the question. I'm sure you're not trying to justify governments committing genocides. But I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The answer to "why did they...?" is always "because they wanted to, and because they could".
Maine added a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children to get food stamps and 75% of those recipients dropped out of the program rather than do volunteer work 6 hours per week.
We're not giving them enough to get out of poverty.
The ability to get out of poverty and stay out of poverty tends to require something that can't be given to people. You can't give someone good health and you can't give them the fortitude to go to work and do a job every day.
Nope, just checked again. Quote #1 isn't sourced. Quote #2 is fine but not about a "deal". Quote #3 paywalled.
A ruling to apply tax law as it was written and enacted isn't a "deal".
The first quote doesn't appear at the link you specify. The second doesn't describe a "deal", only a ruling. The third quote may or may not -- it is paywalled.