No, I think what you'd find is that there are more trolls that speak English than there are trolls who speak French or Swedish. Moreover, there are other countries besides the US and Canada that have English as their primary language.
A bot that says "Hitler did nothing wrong" is worth laughing at. Possibly throwing a small bit of ridicule at the developers for not realizing this would happen and taking steps to prevent it, but in the end it's just a bot.
A lot of the "anti-SJW" community would agree with both of those statements. In some of the fringe elements of the "social justice" movement, those statements would get you in trouble for not supporting women or blacks enough. Yes, those circles are a vast minority, but then again, Nazis (neo- or otherwise) are also a vast minority of right-wingers.
They probably don't get that much in annual *salary*; compensation, probably, but at those levels only a sucker makes that much money from salary instead of, say, stock options.
Okay, and...? Previous Congresses decided to commit lots of money to the military. It's easier to change the discretionary budget, but saying "50% of the US budget is the military" is clearly wrong and misleading.
Given that autism is currently recognized much more often in boys than in girls (whether or not this reflects actual incidence is unclear), and that men are much more likely to succeed at committing suicide, I wonder how much of that "nine times more likely" is simply because it has more men and how much is genuine risk.
I recommend you read the book Islam and the Future of Tolerance by Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris. It talks a lot about the Koran and how Islam can be reformed despite some of the violent passages.
Not only that, but there's a decent chance it'll push the UK more towards the Brexit - border controls already being a somewhat popular reason for leaving the EU anyway.
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Well, I was specifically talking about *individuals* here. Even the ultra-wealthy pay a substantial amount in taxes (sometimes at a lower rate than us commoners, true). I completely agree that we need to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code; it shouldn't be as difficult as it is for a family or small business to do their taxes properly.
I'm sure that if you were a billionaire and wanted to do some public road work, you could work something out with the government - you might be able to adopt the road, effectively turning it into a toll road (and thus being responsible for some of its maintenance) but don't charge people to use it.
However, if the proposal in the article is adopted, there's no real way of making the government spend the extra income on what you want them to either.
They already do pay quite a bit for it. Some people feel they should pay more, which is fine - they feel others should also be forced to pay more, which is sometimes necessary for society to function. However, while they're advocating for others to pay more, they should be voluntarily paying more anyway.
Also, the "moral compass" jibe doesn't hold up. They already pay quite a bit, as I mentioned before. Not wanting to increase taxes != being let off the hook.
40 millionaires could do a decent bit for New York State, depending on how they spent their own money and how much. This is just one state, remember. And while they're advocating for higher taxes, they should be voluntarily paying more than they need to (or at least not taking advantage of different tax avoidance strategies). To do otherwise is hypocritical. You seem to be conflating hypocrisy with effectiveness.
No, sports are a direct competition. While some ultra-rich people may view the accumulation of wealth as a competition, there's no reason to think that the people who are advocating for increased taxes do.
It is sort of hypocritical to try to force everyone else to conform to rules you're proposing while you aren't doing it yourself, but (per your own admission) certainly could. Understandable, perhaps, but still hypocritical.
If they want to pay more in taxes, they are free to do that voluntarily. They're also free to adopt roadways or donate to private charities that may align with their priorities better; if they really want to spend money to fix things, they're already capable of that without changing the tax structure.
No, the US does not spend over 50% of its budget on military. Over 50% of the discretionary budget is military, but nearly two-thirds of the budget overall is mandatory spending.
He was using a 5C. The iPhone 6 and later have a different hardware architecture that wouldn't be susceptible to the brute force attack that the FBI wants to do, I think. Yeah, the FBI really shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Yeah, "if you want to come over here and get paid a lot more than you would have in your original country, we'll let you" is definitely the same thing as slavery./s
How much territory has the US seized from any of its recent military engagements? And "contested territory" as a phrase has been around for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think what you'd find is that there are more trolls that speak English than there are trolls who speak French or Swedish. Moreover, there are other countries besides the US and Canada that have English as their primary language.
A bot that says "Hitler did nothing wrong" is worth laughing at. Possibly throwing a small bit of ridicule at the developers for not realizing this would happen and taking steps to prevent it, but in the end it's just a bot.
A lot of the "anti-SJW" community would agree with both of those statements. In some of the fringe elements of the "social justice" movement, those statements would get you in trouble for not supporting women or blacks enough. Yes, those circles are a vast minority, but then again, Nazis (neo- or otherwise) are also a vast minority of right-wingers.
It probably would have called people "daddy" less often.
They probably don't get that much in annual *salary*; compensation, probably, but at those levels only a sucker makes that much money from salary instead of, say, stock options.
Okay, and...? Previous Congresses decided to commit lots of money to the military. It's easier to change the discretionary budget, but saying "50% of the US budget is the military" is clearly wrong and misleading.
Given that autism is currently recognized much more often in boys than in girls (whether or not this reflects actual incidence is unclear), and that men are much more likely to succeed at committing suicide, I wonder how much of that "nine times more likely" is simply because it has more men and how much is genuine risk.
I thought you could turn it on and off. I'm not sure how easy/convenient that is, but I was fairly sure it was something you could do if you wanted.
"Stuff that matters". This matters.
I recommend you read the book Islam and the Future of Tolerance by Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris. It talks a lot about the Koran and how Islam can be reformed despite some of the violent passages.
Not only that, but there's a decent chance it'll push the UK more towards the Brexit - border controls already being a somewhat popular reason for leaving the EU anyway.
This could have been me: I missed this train by less than five minutes. As one of the people who was targeted today, I would like to ask all Europeans on this forum to make their voices heard in their own countries: WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED! We know that the world is a risky place. Don't ruin our liberty and solidarity trying to legislate that risk away.
Very well said, and stay safe.
Well, I was specifically talking about *individuals* here. Even the ultra-wealthy pay a substantial amount in taxes (sometimes at a lower rate than us commoners, true). I completely agree that we need to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code; it shouldn't be as difficult as it is for a family or small business to do their taxes properly.
I'm sure that if you were a billionaire and wanted to do some public road work, you could work something out with the government - you might be able to adopt the road, effectively turning it into a toll road (and thus being responsible for some of its maintenance) but don't charge people to use it.
However, if the proposal in the article is adopted, there's no real way of making the government spend the extra income on what you want them to either.
They already do pay quite a bit for it. Some people feel they should pay more, which is fine - they feel others should also be forced to pay more, which is sometimes necessary for society to function. However, while they're advocating for others to pay more, they should be voluntarily paying more anyway.
Also, the "moral compass" jibe doesn't hold up. They already pay quite a bit, as I mentioned before. Not wanting to increase taxes != being let off the hook.
40 millionaires could do a decent bit for New York State, depending on how they spent their own money and how much. This is just one state, remember. And while they're advocating for higher taxes, they should be voluntarily paying more than they need to (or at least not taking advantage of different tax avoidance strategies). To do otherwise is hypocritical. You seem to be conflating hypocrisy with effectiveness.
No, sports are a direct competition. While some ultra-rich people may view the accumulation of wealth as a competition, there's no reason to think that the people who are advocating for increased taxes do.
It is sort of hypocritical to try to force everyone else to conform to rules you're proposing while you aren't doing it yourself, but (per your own admission) certainly could. Understandable, perhaps, but still hypocritical.
If they want to pay more in taxes, they are free to do that voluntarily. They're also free to adopt roadways or donate to private charities that may align with their priorities better; if they really want to spend money to fix things, they're already capable of that without changing the tax structure.
Commenting to undo moderation - I swear I clicked on "Funny" but it entered "Overrated".
No, the US does not spend over 50% of its budget on military. Over 50% of the discretionary budget is military, but nearly two-thirds of the budget overall is mandatory spending.
Maybe once, but never when I've paid cash.
He was using a 5C. The iPhone 6 and later have a different hardware architecture that wouldn't be susceptible to the brute force attack that the FBI wants to do, I think. Yeah, the FBI really shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Yeah, "if you want to come over here and get paid a lot more than you would have in your original country, we'll let you" is definitely the same thing as slavery. /s
How much territory has the US seized from any of its recent military engagements? And "contested territory" as a phrase has been around for a long time.