What if the problem is insufficient regulation? Then the solution is definitely more regulation. I'd bet that the US has the weakest employer-protection laws in the West. The scariest thing is, Americans have been conditioned to think that being basically owned by their employers and treated like shit by their bosses is a good thing, and that any alternative way of doing things is evil liberal socialism.
You're arguing that social responsibility is better than government authoritarianism? If more companies acted like Google we wouldn't need so many laws.
Unfortuanately those figures are government statistics. From the same government that has a vested interest in reporting lower crime, and the same government with a history of bollocks statistics.
What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.
I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.
It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.
I don't see how Labour are gaining anything through it. If anything, their atrocious record on law and order plays straight into the hands of the Tories.
What if Florida or Ohio decided to pass a law saying that the name of the official major party nominees had to be submitted 180 days before the election?
Then if John McCain or Barack Obama want to stand for election in those states, they can submit their names 180 days before the election. Whether they get their party's nomination afterwards is no-one's concern but their own.
Anyway, who says a party has to nominate the same candidate in every state?
Ah, the two party red herring. Is Dennis Kucunich, who introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney, on the same page as Obama or Hillary? Does Ron Paul have the same stance on the issues as John McCain? Do the Log Cabin Republicans have the same priorities as the Christian Coalition? Having two parties in no way cuts down on your number of options or the number of views represented.
That argument would be acceptable if parties could have more than one candidate on the ballot. As it happens, Ron Paul supporters now have no representation in the election. Even if he stood independently, the first-past-the-post system means he'll just give votes to Obama.
The main failure of the electoral college is the 'all or nothing' nature of it. For example Florida has 27 electoral college votes out of 538. Now if one candidate won the state with only a few more votes than his rival, it means a 5% swing nationwide. If the same happened in Texas it would be 6.5%, and in California, 10%.
This effectively means that the whole election can be decided by a few thousand votes in a small number of swing states.
If you're throwing all that 'taxation without representation' business out of the window, then logically you should be required to join the British Empire.
So you'd prefer to return to a situation where Alabama can discriminate against blacks, without any interference from that terrible federal government.
You can't treat Europe as a country, because it isn't.
Why can't the USA be run somewhat like the EU? Each state looks after their own affairs, paying a membership fee to Congress to run things like the military, interstate highways, NASA etc.
Actually under a higher-taxation society, there is more social mobility and access to decent education, so you'll be more likey to gain the qualifications needed to emigrate to Canada, and to earn a decent living so you can afford to move.
A true libertarian would shut down all schools and libraries and abolish minimum wage and employment laws, so you'd be so dirt-poor and ignorant you wouldn't even know where Canada was, let alone be able to afford to go there.
The problem is, when the moon rotates all the panels are facing the wrong way. Plus with the sun being low on the horizon, they'd all be in each other's way.
With oil prices the way they are, I won't be putting any money into airlines. Especially as with a recession coming up, luxuries like foreign travel will be amongst the first things to be cut.
If anything Threads will INCREASE the chance of hanging the entire browser, because correct Thread programming is HARD!
It's hard, but then I'd guess that when making Chrome, Google hired programmers capable of doing hard things. When I load a 600-post Slashdot thread in a Firefox tab and see my whole browser freeze up for many seconds, I think I'll take multi-threading any day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the problem is insufficient regulation? Then the solution is definitely more regulation. I'd bet that the US has the weakest employer-protection laws in the West. The scariest thing is, Americans have been conditioned to think that being basically owned by their employers and treated like shit by their bosses is a good thing, and that any alternative way of doing things is evil liberal socialism.
Or, the petty whiners could just turn down the brightness on their monitors, and they could play with the lights off, whilst cutting themselves.
You're arguing that social responsibility is better than government authoritarianism? If more companies acted like Google we wouldn't need so many laws.
Unfortuanately those figures are government statistics. From the same government that has a vested interest in reporting lower crime, and the same government with a history of bollocks statistics.
What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.
I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.
I don't see how Labour are gaining anything through it. If anything, their atrocious record on law and order plays straight into the hands of the Tories.
Then if John McCain or Barack Obama want to stand for election in those states, they can submit their names 180 days before the election. Whether they get their party's nomination afterwards is no-one's concern but their own.
Anyway, who says a party has to nominate the same candidate in every state?
That argument would be acceptable if parties could have more than one candidate on the ballot. As it happens, Ron Paul supporters now have no representation in the election. Even if he stood independently, the first-past-the-post system means he'll just give votes to Obama.
Civil Rights Act.
The main failure of the electoral college is the 'all or nothing' nature of it. For example Florida has 27 electoral college votes out of 538. Now if one candidate won the state with only a few more votes than his rival, it means a 5% swing nationwide. If the same happened in Texas it would be 6.5%, and in California, 10%.
This effectively means that the whole election can be decided by a few thousand votes in a small number of swing states.
If you're throwing all that 'taxation without representation' business out of the window, then logically you should be required to join the British Empire.
So you'd prefer to return to a situation where Alabama can discriminate against blacks, without any interference from that terrible federal government.
I'm pretty sure you have to pay for the expansions.
Why can't the USA be run somewhat like the EU? Each state looks after their own affairs, paying a membership fee to Congress to run things like the military, interstate highways, NASA etc.
Actually under a higher-taxation society, there is more social mobility and access to decent education, so you'll be more likey to gain the qualifications needed to emigrate to Canada, and to earn a decent living so you can afford to move.
A true libertarian would shut down all schools and libraries and abolish minimum wage and employment laws, so you'd be so dirt-poor and ignorant you wouldn't even know where Canada was, let alone be able to afford to go there.
Perhaps he's not counting 'christians' who only go to church for weddings and funerals.
PC gamers pay $15 a month to play a game they've already bought.
The problem is, when the moon rotates all the panels are facing the wrong way. Plus with the sun being low on the horizon, they'd all be in each other's way.
Not really cheap when you include the massive subsidies.
Then don't buy a fucking smart phone, get a normal phone. It ain't rocket science.
With oil prices the way they are, I won't be putting any money into airlines. Especially as with a recession coming up, luxuries like foreign travel will be amongst the first things to be cut.
It's hard, but then I'd guess that when making Chrome, Google hired programmers capable of doing hard things. When I load a 600-post Slashdot thread in a Firefox tab and see my whole browser freeze up for many seconds, I think I'll take multi-threading any day of the week.
It's nearly a thousand pounds for every person in Britain.
Yeah, we should thank Scotland for the oil that is several hundred miles away from Scotland in the sea, discovered and dug up by the English.
Considering the state of Portugal's economy, that 19 is equivalent to about 40 in the UK, which is around double what we pay for the same connection.