First of all, Clinton did nothing illegal (in regards to her email server). If you are following a news source that says she did, they are lying. I would personally reconsider listening to them. Should she have use a personal email server? No, definitely not. That's my biggest problem. She is not in touch with any sort of reality. A personal email server was fine when Bill was running for POTUS, but that was over 20 years ago. There are voters today, that never lived through a Bill Clinton election. There is plenty to dislike about Clinton, this email server is not really an issue.
Second, do you really think a Democratic President will leave office without pardoning the Democratic Candidate, if they were about to be indicted? That's another clue that you should reconsider who your listening too, you might not be smart enough to make major decisions on your own.
Actually, the senate is beholden to Congress. Congress says how many justices and they have pegged it at nine.
Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
Too bad our system is managementism and cronyism. Capital is carefully separated from it's owners and parceled out into tiny increments so no one person can claim real ownership... I wonder why that is?
Well, top 10% anyway. That's a great number to trot out. It ignores that "Income Tax is less then half of Federal taxes. Payroll tax is a huge chunk, with corporate taxes and tariffs/fees/fines making up the rest. When everything is lumped together, that 47% of payroll tax is less then 25% of federal taxes, a pretty damn good deal.
So, it looks like the wealthy are shouldering about 25% of the federal tax receipts, sounds like a good deal considering what they get.
Its also far from almost all. I always wondered how people could say, "The rich pay most of the taxes," and "Taxing the rich at 90% would only cover a small part of Federal spending."
This is a look behind the mirror for anyone without the time to dig in themselves.
Pick up Wool, by Hugh Howey. It's a much more plausible scenario then anything your worried about above. Any rogue actor from another country is way more likely to have business to settle close to home. Having them hare off and attack internationally is unlikely. However, some far right (or left) wacko who thinks they are saving the nation is quite plausible. Oryx and Crake by Margeret Atwood has another disturbingly plausible scenario.
I'd put up a nice orange plywood sign that says, "Despite your GPS's claims to the contrary, this is not a road." You might check with the county and see if they can put a nice "dead end" sign up. They might also be able to update the maps, that data probably comes from their records. I used to work for a city and they had their own GIS mapping department who often worked with the counties department to get things like this straightened out.
If you deal with kids you might have found one that has an unhealthy obsession. It could be reading, video games, fighting, watching tv, pokemon cards, whatever... You eventually have to step in and say you can only do this activity for this much time and you need to find something else to do with the rest of your time.
The 91% tax rate functions much like this. It says, "Dude, your just running up the scoreboard. There's more to life." Some people just never mature enough on their own.
I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was out on Netflix, turns out I forgot I had my vpn on Sweden...
https://flixsearch.io/movie/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2014
Sure, there's no way you can construe "males" to mean "white males" based on your sloppy writing. The educational data certainly does account for income and race. Whites do better in both, with less poverty and more opportunity when in poverty. http://www.npc.umich.edu/publi...
That's not to say there aren't plenty of whites with problem worse then plenty of other colors, but your blanket statement alleging lack of opportunity for white males is simply not true. Maybe there is a lack of opportunity for assholes, that would explain your problems. If I had more time I would look for some data for you, since you appear to have substandard analysis skills.
I'm not sure I see alot of "not judging by others of my race's action" from the white people are discriminated against crowd. In fact, it seems like minorities in general are being lumped together, whether we identify ourselves that way or not. I'm hispanic, but ethnically ambiguous. I get asked if I'm asian often and I thought I could pass for white, but my white wife disagrees.
Where are you getting your data? Here's what I found. It doesn't seem to support your analysis.
Criminal Justice outcomes are also widely accepted as being worse for non-whites, as well as health outcomes. Granted, much of this is due to poverty which you can pretend is not related to race, despite boatloads of evidence to the contrary.
What some cursory evidence does seem to indicate is that the gap between outcomes for different races is narrowing, slowly. This is probably what your really noticing.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your just ignorant, not racist.
I have a "family" gmail system. We share calenders fine. My wife and I sync ours to each others phone. I also share email with my kids. I have it configured so I can log into their email from my account. For kids to young for their own email, I configure an alias for my account or my wife's and set forwarding rules to make sure we both get the messages. It's pretty easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Digital is only convenient for the insurance companies, not the doctors. Most would prefer to go back to dictation.
That's like saying this muffin is burnt, so I'll eat this one that's full of broken glass instead, if you really object to racist candidates...
First of all, Clinton did nothing illegal (in regards to her email server). If you are following a news source that says she did, they are lying. I would personally reconsider listening to them.
Should she have use a personal email server?
No, definitely not.
That's my biggest problem. She is not in touch with any sort of reality. A personal email server was fine when Bill was running for POTUS, but that was over 20 years ago. There are voters today, that never lived through a Bill Clinton election.
There is plenty to dislike about Clinton, this email server is not really an issue.
Second, do you really think a Democratic President will leave office without pardoning the Democratic Candidate, if they were about to be indicted?
That's another clue that you should reconsider who your listening too, you might not be smart enough to make major decisions on your own.
Actually, the senate is beholden to Congress. Congress says how many justices and they have pegged it at nine.
Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?
Have there always been nine? The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
There are laws on the books to protect people from discrimination, and more often than not the benefit of the doubt goes to the plaintiff.
Ask me how I know your white and male? (and wrong)
Too bad our system is managementism and cronyism. Capital is carefully separated from it's owners and parceled out into tiny increments so no one person can claim real ownership... I wonder why that is?
Well, top 10% anyway. That's a great number to trot out. It ignores that "Income Tax is less then half of Federal taxes. Payroll tax is a huge chunk, with corporate taxes and tariffs/fees/fines making up the rest. When everything is lumped together, that 47% of payroll tax is less then 25% of federal taxes, a pretty damn good deal.
1/3 of the US's Tax revenue comes from Payroll tax, which is born more by the poor. The majority of the wealthy's income is either not subject to this tax, or above the limit to apply. This graph shows only 46% is income tax, of which around 50% is from the wealthy.
So, it looks like the wealthy are shouldering about 25% of the federal tax receipts, sounds like a good deal considering what they get.
Its also far from almost all.
I always wondered how people could say, "The rich pay most of the taxes," and "Taxing the rich at 90% would only cover a small part of Federal spending."
This is a look behind the mirror for anyone without the time to dig in themselves.
Pick up Wool, by Hugh Howey. It's a much more plausible scenario then anything your worried about above. Any rogue actor from another country is way more likely to have business to settle close to home. Having them hare off and attack internationally is unlikely.
However, some far right (or left) wacko who thinks they are saving the nation is quite plausible. Oryx and Crake by Margeret Atwood has another disturbingly plausible scenario.
Why would Time Warner do this?
67 is not that old.
but it's old enough to make this story plausible...
I left this above, buy you might need to read it twice: http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
It literally takes dozens of contracts to give you anything similar to what you automatically get with marriage, some can't be duplicated, like tax advantages and such. At the bare minimum, you need a will, a power-of-attorney, a medical POA, and some changes to your retirement and insurance benefits. It would be nice if there was a legal way to make all these changes and more with a single set of documents (marriage / divorce).
I'd put up a nice orange plywood sign that says, "Despite your GPS's claims to the contrary, this is not a road."
You might check with the county and see if they can put a nice "dead end" sign up. They might also be able to update the maps, that data probably comes from their records. I used to work for a city and they had their own GIS mapping department who often worked with the counties department to get things like this straightened out.
untrue, citation please.
If you deal with kids you might have found one that has an unhealthy obsession. It could be reading, video games, fighting, watching tv, pokemon cards, whatever... You eventually have to step in and say you can only do this activity for this much time and you need to find something else to do with the rest of your time.
The 91% tax rate functions much like this. It says, "Dude, your just running up the scoreboard. There's more to life." Some people just never mature enough on their own.
I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was out on Netflix, turns out I forgot I had my vpn on Sweden...
https://flixsearch.io/movie/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2014
UK data? I'm US and talking about the US. If your truly talking about the UK, I apologize. If your trying to muddy the US issue, I don't.
Race issue in the US are totally different the race issues in Europe.
Yes, I'm aware that hispanic is not a race, but thanks for clarifying.
Sure, there's no way you can construe "males" to mean "white males" based on your sloppy writing. The educational data certainly does account for income and race. Whites do better in both, with less poverty and more opportunity when in poverty.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publi...
That's not to say there aren't plenty of whites with problem worse then plenty of other colors, but your blanket statement alleging lack of opportunity for white males is simply not true.
Maybe there is a lack of opportunity for assholes, that would explain your problems. If I had more time I would look for some data for you, since you appear to have substandard analysis skills.
I'm not sure I see alot of "not judging by others of my race's action" from the white people are discriminated against crowd. In fact, it seems like minorities in general are being lumped together, whether we identify ourselves that way or not.
I'm hispanic, but ethnically ambiguous. I get asked if I'm asian often and I thought I could pass for white, but my white wife disagrees.
I think there is a secret amendment to the US constitution that says "every dollar is equal".
Yes, but as your anecdote clearly indicates, you were in charge and you are white. I'm not sure how that indicates a deck stacked against whites.
Where are you getting your data? Here's what I found. It doesn't seem to support your analysis.
Criminal Justice outcomes are also widely accepted as being worse for non-whites, as well as health outcomes. Granted, much of this is due to poverty which you can pretend is not related to race, despite boatloads of evidence to the contrary.
What some cursory evidence does seem to indicate is that the gap between outcomes for different races is narrowing, slowly. This is probably what your really noticing.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your just ignorant, not racist.
I have a "family" gmail system. We share calenders fine. My wife and I sync ours to each others phone. I also share email with my kids. I have it configured so I can log into their email from my account. For kids to young for their own email, I configure an alias for my account or my wife's and set forwarding rules to make sure we both get the messages.
It's pretty easy.