DO YOUR JOB YOU MORONS! And negotiate in the best interest of your countries!!)
I know you think that is how politics works, but in a democracy it doesn't. And for good reason.
This may explain why you don't like politics, because you don't understand all the complexities that make it extremely difficult to work in.
It's not a question of "opinion", it's a question of observation of other people.
700 million of them? And we should take you anecdotal evidence over numerous organisations that actually you know publish their methods in some sort of reasonable manner?
See, science and reasoning are based on thinking, instead of "taking someone's word."
The irony of this comment is clearly lost on you
Now, if you want to try to make a convincing argument why my ecological footprint is a measure of my happiness, be my guest.
As soon as you send me the survey results of the 700 million other people you interviewed on the subject we can go into details...
Yeah. Median is a statistical measure, and middle when applied to class is a social status.
Just what the fuck do they have in common exactly?
Um ok, I'll spell it out to you, the middle class are people in the middle ie around the median (Thought that was obvious, but I guess you can't assume too much around here)
And I didn't just "live" there, I grew up in Europe and spent half my life there. I'm sharing my observation as an emigrant from Europe.
That's nice. But you do realise there are 700 million odd other people also from Europe who might have a different opinion than you? Do you see the flaw in your thinking there? We get that you're an old grump, but maybe that's just you.
The HPI concocts a measure out of a poll about happiness, life expectancy, inequality of outcomes and ecological footprint and then calls that "happiness". The index is weighted to give progressively...
So instead we should just take your word for it? That's your counter argument?
Take it from someone with first hand experience: they are not.
So let me get you straight. Because you've lived in Europe we should accept that you speak for all Europeans (even the other Europeans who have a different opinion to you) and that they are all not happy because you said so? That's some fucking great powers of intellect going on there, yet for some strange reason the independent data disagrees with you
He's of the opinion that the poor are just as irresponsible with their spending as everyone else, and after giving them the handout they will still be without the essentials.
Are you talking all poor people or just some? Because it sounds like you're stereotyping to suit your argument...
Don't need a place to live either. You can just sponge yourself down in the McDonalds bathroom too.
Life is so cheap. Too bad the cost of living isn't.
I lived in a car for a year to see if I could do it. My work had a gym and shower/toilet so my only outgoings were fuel (not much since I slept in the car park) and food (also not much since I was trying out the meagre existence)
Yeah it wasn't great but was better than what most people living 150 years ago had. And you obviously need a car to start with and a job with 24hr access to a bathroom, but if you lower your expectations, the cost of living can be quite reasonable.
I could actually do this longer term but next time would get a van so I can stand up inside.
Again that's a space and time problem. If you want people to work you can't be picky about how or when they can be contacted for it.
What?
It cost nothing to receive a call. I have a prepaid plan that cost $10 every 3 months, and the device cost me $15 new.
Internet is free at the library, you only need to search and apply once a day then wait for someone to call back. So for precisely $25 you have 3 months worth of job searching capability. I'm speaking from first hand experience here.
I would love not having them around, however be aware that mosquitos are a staple for bats. You have to think about the food chain first before you just go blindly killing all of them.
I'm not sure how you think the process would work, but I'm pretty sure that "think of the consequences" would be part of it.
But it's not just Norway is it?
If you ever keep an eye on those OECD comparison things, there's a whole host of countries that do consistently better than the US on education, health, crime, corruption, social welfare, life expectancy etc. So take Norway out, let's compare Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Germany, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan etc etc and you will see a strong correlation between appropriate regulation and quality of life.
Conversely if you look at the worst places in the world, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan etc they all have next to no rules, you can do what ever you an get away with and the people suffer as a consequence.
The US is the richest nation on earth with the most abundant natural resources. It should win at everything, but it doesn't.
Why do you think that is?
In summary, what works in Norway does not and will not work here in the United States,
Because?
unless you believe that the US government should be run entirely according to the culture, traditions and ideas of northern European white men. Funny, but that doesn't strike me as a very liberal idea and yet the liberals keep gushing about Norway. Go figure.
There is a strong correlation between countries that use regulations to improve quality of life and succeed, and those that don't and don't. The American fascination with "freedom" is causing a lot of your problems.
And herein lies the catch. In the open ocean there are no police or army to help you out. So the Somalians come and kill you and take your stuff, how is that for a plan?
This is precisely why we have taxes, to fund the safe, secure environment we all live and work in. But the rich want all the reward and none of the cost and this is why it is unsustainable.
Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of...
I don't get why taxes a based on profit instead of income. The whole idea on profit opens the system up to fraud since everyone pretends they don't have one simply to avoid contributing to the system they rely on to exist.
When I sell my house, I pay 2% to the agent based on price. If I buy a house for $500k and sell it for $450k, losing $50k I don't get a refund from the agent, I still have to pay the 2%. The government should work the same.
If you can't manage to turn a profit why is that my problem as a tax payer? Tax is the fee for being allowed to operate in a stable environment that a well run government provides, I see no reason why this is tied to profit instead of gross income.
Do you try to minimize your tax burden? Do you take any deductions? Are others not allowed to because they made more money?
I pay about 30% of my gross income to tax, plus 10% of everything I spend.
I expect people poorer than me to pay a slightly lower percentage, and people richer than me to pay slightly higher. I think that is a fair contribution to maintain a functional society.
Percentage wise, the rich and the poor are both paying lower percentages than me, how is that fair in your opinion?
This would be like a landlord who underpays taxes because he foolishly agreed to rent his property at too low a price and the IRS, instead of keeping the issue between the landlord and the IRS, goes after the tenant for rent...
No. The analogy would be the landlord who tells his tenant he doesn't have to pay the water bill because he getting a special deal, then the local council comes in and tells the landlord he has no right to give special deals, so then instructs the tenant to backpay his water bill.
Cook is spot-on. It's political crap from a collapsing union in decline, sinking under the weight of an overbearing collectivist bureaucracy, entitlements, and Newspeak PC political/ideological horseshit.
Really? The only thing stopping you was your fear of going to jail?
In this case yes.
So you have no moral compass and you base all your moral decisions based on fear of punishment?
No, and that is a bit of stretch of logic. But some decisions are, and that's the thing with complex things like morality, they can't be summarised easily in single catchy sentences.
You're religious aren't you? Most likely christian. They love that whole morality through fear thing.
I'm sure they do, but I think you've gone off half-cocked here. The first thing you learn in high school ethics is the starving man stealing a loaf of bread example. There are infinite shades of grey with morality, don't make the mistake that religious people do and paint everything black and white.
Slashdot Mirror
DO YOUR JOB YOU MORONS! And negotiate in the best interest of your countries!!)
I know you think that is how politics works, but in a democracy it doesn't. And for good reason.
This may explain why you don't like politics, because you don't understand all the complexities that make it extremely difficult to work in.
Where does it say anything about America? I thought is was something to do with ancient Rome. My vote is the Arch.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Obviously.
You're comparing killing off a species to personal hygiene?
Yes because do you know what problem hygiene is trying solve?
Let's just let that sink in a bit.
Go do some basic biology then come back.
It's not a question of "opinion", it's a question of observation of other people.
700 million of them? And we should take you anecdotal evidence over numerous organisations that actually you know publish their methods in some sort of reasonable manner?
See, science and reasoning are based on thinking, instead of "taking someone's word."
The irony of this comment is clearly lost on you
Now, if you want to try to make a convincing argument why my ecological footprint is a measure of my happiness, be my guest.
As soon as you send me the survey results of the 700 million other people you interviewed on the subject we can go into details...
Not only is it not obvious, it's also wrong.
Go to fucking school or something.
Right, can't argue with reason so resort to childish insults instead. You sure you're not supposed to be on Reddit or something?
Yeah. Median is a statistical measure, and middle when applied to class is a social status.
Just what the fuck do they have in common exactly?
Um ok, I'll spell it out to you, the middle class are people in the middle ie around the median (Thought that was obvious, but I guess you can't assume too much around here)
Unfortunately sleeping in your car isn't legal everywhere...
So are lots of things. But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you gotta do.
And I didn't just "live" there, I grew up in Europe and spent half my life there. I'm sharing my observation as an emigrant from Europe.
That's nice. But you do realise there are 700 million odd other people also from Europe who might have a different opinion than you? Do you see the flaw in your thinking there? We get that you're an old grump, but maybe that's just you.
The HPI concocts a measure out of a poll about happiness, life expectancy, inequality of outcomes and ecological footprint and then calls that "happiness". The index is weighted to give progressively...
So instead we should just take your word for it? That's your counter argument?
You're an idiot trying to push an agenda.
That's a good discussion technique, I'll try that out next time I have nothing useful to say...
And someone making $61k a year is nowhere near middle class,
Do you know the relationship between the words median and middle? Obviously not...
Take it from someone with first hand experience: they are not.
So let me get you straight. Because you've lived in Europe we should accept that you speak for all Europeans (even the other Europeans who have a different opinion to you) and that they are all not happy because you said so? That's some fucking great powers of intellect going on there, yet for some strange reason the independent data disagrees with you
He's of the opinion that the poor are just as irresponsible with their spending as everyone else, and after giving them the handout they will still be without the essentials.
Are you talking all poor people or just some? Because it sounds like you're stereotyping to suit your argument...
Don't need a place to live either. You can just sponge yourself down in the McDonalds bathroom too.
Life is so cheap. Too bad the cost of living isn't.
I lived in a car for a year to see if I could do it. My work had a gym and shower/toilet so my only outgoings were fuel (not much since I slept in the car park) and food (also not much since I was trying out the meagre existence)
Yeah it wasn't great but was better than what most people living 150 years ago had. And you obviously need a car to start with and a job with 24hr access to a bathroom, but if you lower your expectations, the cost of living can be quite reasonable.
I could actually do this longer term but next time would get a van so I can stand up inside.
Again that's a space and time problem. If you want people to work you can't be picky about how or when they can be contacted for it.
What?
It cost nothing to receive a call. I have a prepaid plan that cost $10 every 3 months, and the device cost me $15 new.
Internet is free at the library, you only need to search and apply once a day then wait for someone to call back. So for precisely $25 you have 3 months worth of job searching capability. I'm speaking from first hand experience here.
I don't think we should be playing God
Do you cut your hair or brush your teeth? Wash your hands after going to the toilet? This is same concept...
I would love not having them around, however be aware that mosquitos are a staple for bats. You have to think about the food chain first before you just go blindly killing all of them.
I'm not sure how you think the process would work, but I'm pretty sure that "think of the consequences" would be part of it.
Does that mean if people keep using the phrase "I could care less", then the words could and couldn't officially switch meaning?
Only if you don't understand the etymology of both of these phrases http://blog.dictionary.com/cou...
But it's not just Norway is it?
If you ever keep an eye on those OECD comparison things, there's a whole host of countries that do consistently better than the US on education, health, crime, corruption, social welfare, life expectancy etc. So take Norway out, let's compare Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Germany, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan etc etc and you will see a strong correlation between appropriate regulation and quality of life.
Conversely if you look at the worst places in the world, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan etc they all have next to no rules, you can do what ever you an get away with and the people suffer as a consequence.
The US is the richest nation on earth with the most abundant natural resources. It should win at everything, but it doesn't.
Why do you think that is?
In summary, what works in Norway does not and will not work here in the United States,
Because?
unless you believe that the US government should be run entirely according to the culture, traditions and ideas of northern European white men. Funny, but that doesn't strike me as a very liberal idea and yet the liberals keep gushing about Norway. Go figure.
There is a strong correlation between countries that use regulations to improve quality of life and succeed, and those that don't and don't. The American fascination with "freedom" is causing a lot of your problems.
No, you don't...
You want expensive? How about we withdraw from NATO and let Germany worry about Russia on their own?
So if you withdraw from NATO, Putin will just leave the US alone? That's a new kind of naive I haven't seen around here for a while...
And herein lies the catch. In the open ocean there are no police or army to help you out. So the Somalians come and kill you and take your stuff, how is that for a plan?
This is precisely why we have taxes, to fund the safe, secure environment we all live and work in. But the rich want all the reward and none of the cost and this is why it is unsustainable.
Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of...
I don't get why taxes a based on profit instead of income. The whole idea on profit opens the system up to fraud since everyone pretends they don't have one simply to avoid contributing to the system they rely on to exist.
When I sell my house, I pay 2% to the agent based on price. If I buy a house for $500k and sell it for $450k, losing $50k I don't get a refund from the agent, I still have to pay the 2%. The government should work the same.
If you can't manage to turn a profit why is that my problem as a tax payer? Tax is the fee for being allowed to operate in a stable environment that a well run government provides, I see no reason why this is tied to profit instead of gross income.
Do you try to minimize your tax burden? Do you take any deductions? Are others not allowed to because they made more money?
I pay about 30% of my gross income to tax, plus 10% of everything I spend.
I expect people poorer than me to pay a slightly lower percentage, and people richer than me to pay slightly higher. I think that is a fair contribution to maintain a functional society.
Percentage wise, the rich and the poor are both paying lower percentages than me, how is that fair in your opinion?
This would be like a landlord who underpays taxes because he foolishly agreed to rent his property at too low a price and the IRS, instead of keeping the issue between the landlord and the IRS, goes after the tenant for rent ...
No. The analogy would be the landlord who tells his tenant he doesn't have to pay the water bill because he getting a special deal, then the local council comes in and tells the landlord he has no right to give special deals, so then instructs the tenant to backpay his water bill.
Cook is spot-on. It's political crap from a collapsing union in decline, sinking under the weight of an overbearing collectivist bureaucracy, entitlements, and Newspeak PC political/ideological horseshit.
Oh ok then, if that makes you feel better...
Really? The only thing stopping you was your fear of going to jail?
In this case yes.
So you have no moral compass and you base all your moral decisions based on fear of punishment?
No, and that is a bit of stretch of logic. But some decisions are, and that's the thing with complex things like morality, they can't be summarised easily in single catchy sentences.
You're religious aren't you? Most likely christian. They love that whole morality through fear thing.
I'm sure they do, but I think you've gone off half-cocked here. The first thing you learn in high school ethics is the starving man stealing a loaf of bread example. There are infinite shades of grey with morality, don't make the mistake that religious people do and paint everything black and white.