"Morbid obesity is one of the most common findings turning up in severely ill patients," said Nikki Shindo, who is leading the investigation of swine flu patients at the WHO in Geneva. "It's a huge problem."
C'mon. Why is it that people who are otherwise intelligent, rational thinkers suddenly turn that part of their brains off when it is time to attack Christianity?
Because for 1) it is easier to just turn that part of their brains off (i.e. "la la la I can't hear you" mentality) and 2) it is fun to bash others, 3) especially Christians/conservatives by those who feel they are more elite because they *may* be more "rational". Kind of ironic that the people doing the bashing feel they are the more rational group. They seem on the immature side to me. As an aside, I am pleasantly surprised to see many people comment on this submission with facts about the Bible. I didn't realize there were this many people who understood and/or knew the Bible. I know that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with it but hey, at least they are willing to read it and sometimes that is at least enough to agree to disagree.
I will say this though. Heavy metal rules and I would gladly fuck you with a broom handle. Or maybe my nun chucks. Or maybe I would fuck you in the ass with a fucking sword you piece of shit.
You are either gay or you have a weird ass fetish (i.e. rationalized gayness). By the way, you spelled nunchaku wrong.
I actually have a HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 controller in my system now. It has 4 internal SATA connections using a PCIe interface. I just ordered another one as well from newegg.com. I haven't had any issues with the current one and I've had it for a couple years now. The new one will run a 1.5TB RAID 1 array. This controller supposedly has Linux drivers available for it but mine is in a Windows system so can't verify Linux support. The controller is $119 from newegg and I think it is a good deal. My current controller has a 2 drive RAID 0 and a separate 2 drive RAID 1 array.
The endosymbiotic hypothesis maintains that eukaryotes evolved from symbiotic interactions between bacteria. There is plenty of evidence for that in chloroplasts and mitochondria: they have their own DNA; their membranes, their DNA, their ribosomes all resemble those of bacteria.
This is similar to the statement that says correlation does not equal causation. Just because I have brown hair and someone across the country also has brown hair and many other similarities doesn't mean both of us are related. At least they called it a "hypothesis" instead of forcing us to accept it as verified fact.
Is that opinion or a fact that can be backed up with some solid evidence?
I'll take his point, but I'll say none of this just began with literacy. The change in our evolution, if you can call it that, started with culture, and culture started a lot earlier than books, a lot earlier, in fact, than humans. Our closest relatives, the higher primates, show, to one degree or another, those abilities too.
If we must feel compelled to apply the term "evolution" to anything that changes over time then I'd have to say that the fact our culture is changing is not part of *our* evolution. It is the evolution of culture itself although we could be said to be defined by our culture but it still isn't changing us directly. As someone else said, it is just semantics, and even that assumes you believe in any instance of evolution anyway.
Contrast this with theological reasoning: "the bible says so, therefore it is true. End of discussion."
Scientists are free to prove the Bible right/wrong. The problem is they do not. Why do they not even try? Are they afraid that they will prove it right?
just about anything in the universe, and specifically various aspects of this planet, is becoming more like numerology than anything else. Case in point:
But on the other, they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere. That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comet.
Any pattern they find seems to make scientists believe something is true, no matter how improbable. Scientists are only seeing what they want to see in this data. Despite this method of guessing based on simply "interesting patterns" and hoping they are right, these very same people consider taking on faith what the Holy Bible says about the origins of the world as being ludicrous. Ahhh, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning hours. Flame on for bucking the *insertGroupNamehere* agenda.
If any other news "event" has ever caused there to be such a massive amount of searching - it worries me that it is a celebrity causing this and that people aren't this into any "real" news that actually impacts them.
It isn't necessarily the "impact" factor but the fact that no one expected it. It was a sudden death. He was 50 years old. This is similar to the death of Heath Ledger. When someone young dies people are going to be shocked and wonder what happened. This is also one of the reasons for an autopsy. Old people who die usually don't have an autopsy done on their bodies unless something is out of whack. Someone dying young is one of those "out of whack" things. It is a curiousity thing just like staring at a car wreck and death is something anyone can relate to.
Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
Since we're talking about health care I can safely say that, in this case, the lower income people are the very people this initiative is supposed to help. It is the rich and possibly the middle class who will have to pay, against their will (through higher taxes), in order to pay for health insurance for others. Those with lower incomes get to sit back and watch the government and/or the rich people pay for everything for them. That is how things work when a Democrat is in office. Daddy gov't will help them by using the money from other people.
for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees aren't really scientists after all. Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist? Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack, no matter their credentials. It's always good to know the government doesn't allow censorship.
In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'
So you feel the government should tax you as much as they want as long as the money is going to the poor or maybe even any good cause they come up with as the excuse for taxing you to take your money legally? Why not choose to handle your money yourself rather than let someone else do it? If anything, we can handle our money better as individuals than the government can (those with excessive debt not included; they are as bad as the government with money management). The Bible does state we should pay our taxes no matter whether the money goes to causes we agree with but that doesn't mean the government should tax us for anything they want. We can only be taxed so much. If we are to be taxed to help others then *everyone* should be taxed fairly to support universal healthcare. There is nothing wrong with paying taxes or giving to charity. There *is* something wrong with being *forced* to give to charity through *excessive* taxes. But I understand your point of view and respect it just as you respect mine.
You don't want the poor and lazy to get the money you worked for... Jesus says you're screwed. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans, this is about you violating your theology hardcore.
I never said all charity should be stopped. I just don't want the government deciding for me how much I should be giving and especially raising taxes so that people who are special enough to be personally considered by Obama to be "rich" have to pay extra in taxes because Obama wants everyone to have health insurance. Given your logic, we need to setup a multi-class system such that the ultra-rich pass down their money to provide insurance to the rich, then the rich pass down a certain amount (through taxes of course) to provide insurance for those in the middle class that don't have it, and so on. Eventually the poor will be taken care of through the eventually flow down of money from the ultra-rich and everyone is happy.....everyone who is poor of course. Anyone in the upper classes are going to complain that their money is going towards someone else's insurance. If it were setup that way not many people would be for universal healthcare because a lot more people would be affected and realize that maybe they shouldn't be a proponent for an idea that makes us get taxed more in order to pay for insurance for those who can't get it. The way it is being proposd now you have the people who benefit from it in one class and the others who are basically going to be paying for it in another. Those who want it say "the rich can afford it". With that logic we should tax them til they have nothing left. When does it stop? People who make more money get taxed more already. They are being taxed enough. Maybe, just maybe, the people who don't have insurance should be the only ones paying into the system in order to fund it? Hmm, that would make more sense but it doesn't punish the rich so it just won't work for Obama's agenda of socialism.
I feel your pain but I'd go for someone who is religious over someone who is a "smart geek girl". There are other qualities I would prefer as well of course. If you want a techy girl then you are already limiting your options. If you want a religious girl your odds are a bit better. A lot of geeks are not into religion (and I'm not implying that being into religion means you are devout) so if you are a geek and a churchgoer then obviously don't expect to meet a geeky religious girl because that is almost an oxymoron in the first place, let alone a female being geeky. As you said, it is similar to the classical engineering problem. Is it possible to find a fast, good, cheap girl?:)
I know church and slashdot don't directly contradict each other. I was making a quick general statement that someone else (didn't check before I replied to this as to who it was to give him/her proper credit, sorry) properly expanded on for me after someone else made a similar statement to yours. There is a general correlation between geeks and anti-religious sentiments. I'm an exception and obviously you are too. I know many geeks though who are atheists, etc. Obviously geeks are going to congregate on slashdot and therefore the anti-religious sentiments are going to exist on slashdot. The anti-religious attitudes are very evident when articles about evolution are submitted and when I make comments about religion in whatever aspect that would run counter to what the general population of slashdot think or feel. If you speak out against religion on slashdot you get modded up otherwise you get modded down. I try to minimize the down mods by making comments like I did to make people realize that, in this particular case, my idea of meeting people at church really can work but it isn't for everyone but I was being fair to the submitter and gave him the option to let *him* decide whether he thought it would be a good idea. I didn't ever see the Troll mod (by the time I saw my post it was at 4/Interesting I think) but obviously other people thought it best that they decide whether it was a good idea rather than letting the submitter decide. Again, that is the anti-religious sentiment that is prevalent on this site. When the modders disagree (whether the message is right or wrong) they mod down. It is sad, actually.
Well, I only have 120 characters to alert others to my beliefs and/or opinions. Had I been given more space I could have espoused on the fact that I do not look down on the poor. Instead I'll do that now since you prompted it. First, you made the wrong assumption about my signature statement. I'm not against helping the poor or the needy. I do it when I feel like it and I do it based on whether I can afford it. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily giving to charity. Many rich people do that if only because they get a tax break. But all that is not the same when the government wants to take my money from me and give it to someone else. That isn't the government's job. That is my job to manage my own money. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, especially to the extent the federal gov't currently does and the fact they want to do more in the near future, is just not right and it is *that* that I am against.
Obama has no qualms about taxing the rich even more than they are now simply to pay for someone else's health insurance. It is like the rich should be giving all their money away to the point where they have nothing left for themselves and that would be okay by some of the people who are less fortunate if it means that all the poor or under-privileged have been taken care of. People say of the rich that "they can afford it". Maybe they can but it isn't their responsibility and they should not be forced to do that with their money. You can only tax the rich so much before it has a very bad effect. If we aren't already there, we're almost to that turning point now; universal healthcare-related tax increases may put us past that edge. I think if Obama wants the rich to help out the poor or those w/o insurance then maybe he should take a $1 salary every year during his term and give the money as his own contribution to universal healthcare and make all the Democrats in Congress join him instead of making the decision to do it with other people's money just because they fit his personal and arbitrary definition of "rich".
If you attend church (fat chance of someone who uses slashdot doing that I know) then that would provide a good starting point. If you have a job then you can maybe organize a get-together after work with the guys. Being that the people are from the workplace, you could probably invite some women and they wouldn't feel as uncomfortable because they know you from work. The cafe' area in a Barnes and Noble might be a good place too. These aren't necessarily geared toward technology but if you are looking for women you basically have to avoid technology anyway.
I'm not saying that the ultra-rich should support the poor.
Ok. Good thing I didn't assume too much then about your intent.
I'm saying that they shouldn't pay their workers wages that prevent them from doing anything above the bare minimum of supporting themselves.
I agree but what is the bare minimum? Legally they can't pay below minimum wage and the government of course sets that bar so unless a company is doing something illegal they are going to be at least paying people the minimum the government believes people need to survive, assuming the employees are in the U.S. As for sweatshops abroad, people choose to work at those jobs for that low wage because it is better than they can get elsewhere in their country. And because they are willing to work for very very low wages it actually means less Americans have jobs because they *can't* work for those same low wages because the cost of living in the U.S. is too high so the jobs are outsourced.
The very notion that 'ultra rich' should even exist as an entire class is troubling. I have no problem rewarding successes, although it's beginning to show that wealth is increasingly hereditary. Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet both deserve their wealth, being exceptionally good at what they do, and deserve to be rewarded for their successes. However, these individuals are most certainly the exception rather than the rule. Although the Bush and Kennedy families have both a number of exceptionally brilliant minds, they've also had a number of complete idiots who managed work their way into positions of power equal to or greater than their similarly-named relatives.
We shouldn't be trying to pick and choose how anyone becomes rich. It could be through inheritance and that original amount could have either been hard-earned or it could have been won through the lottery. It isn't anyone's business how someone is rich and whether they deserve it or not. They may not deserve it but that doesn't mean it should be taken away either.
Nobody *EVER* suggested a complete and total equalization of wages, as it would indeed cause a complete and total stagnation of the economy. However, when the working classes have nothing to aspire to, you experience that same exact stagnation.
I never said anyone did suggest that but that would seem to be a possibility using the logic that Obama and many liberals are using lately with their agenda. I would hope they would never be so stupid to attempt that but if they want everything to be fair in life that is one way to make it happen. It is just taking the fairness idea really far.
However, when the working classes have nothing to aspire to, you experience that same exact stagnation.
I agree when there are no aspirations you get stagnation but when are there no aspirations? THis country provides the ability for people who have the aspirations to achieve them. People came here 200 years ago with nothing or very little and built business empires or at least made a living here with no problems. If you are suggesting that the working class has a possibility of stagnating due to lack of appropriate wages then I say that it comes down to the individuals to change their life so they get out of their rut. There was a movie that Will Smith was in a year or so ago. It was a true story and he played a guy (forget his name) that was homeless but the guy eventually became a stock broker. He had a son and he said his inspiration and motivation came from realizing he had to feed and clothe his son. Point being that if someone can come from being homeless to being a stock broker then anyone can do anything they set their mind to.
Additionally, once an ultra-wealthy social class emerges and entrenches itself, various other social problems begin to emerge, and we begin to see sweatshops and debters prisons reappear. This is an extremely well-established his
It's only funny when someone points out that TARP is Bush and the Republicans' fault. (And before you say "but clinton!" because I know you're thinking it: Bush canceled enforcement of the CRA in 2003. Fat lot of good that did, because the CRA wasn't responsible.
Sorry but I don't know what CRA is to understand your message (and too lazy to look it up). However, as far as TARP being Bush's and the Republicans' fault. I don't deny that it was stupid to have TARP passed. Nobody should have given any money to anyone. The Republicans acted just like the typical Democrats: wanting to give money to people from other taxpayers and in this case it is even worse because these companies caused their own problems through greed. With that said, Congress passed the bill using a Democrat majority so that doesn't make it solely the Republicans' fault. And if we're going to talk about a pissing contest for how much money can be spent the fastest then Obama wins hands down for wasting the most so fast and that excludes the $300 billion or so that Bush left for Obama to spend (not sure if he spent it already or not). He has yet to pass the universal healthcare bill and he hasn't even been in office 6 months either. I will pity this country 4 years from now.
Dude, seriously, sticking your wallet up your ass, jamming your hands over your ears and shouting "mine! mine! mine!" would send the same message as your post in a much shorter space of time.
Dude, actually, it wouldn't. I'm not against voluntarily giving people money. I donate what I feel I can afford and hopefully it is on par with what others donate for whatever organization or cause is asking for money on any given day. I don't donate all the time though. But the key point there is that it is what I feel I can afford. I'm not rich but I give voluntarily. The government shouldn't be the one to decide who is deemed rich enough to be forced to give some of their money in extra taxes in order to pay for someone else's insurance or whatever. My original message stated there is a difference between giving to charity and having the government take from the rich to give to the poor. No where did I state that conservatives should be selfish and say "mine! mine! mine!". If you think that is what I said or if you just think that is how I feel, as well as other conservatives, then you either have a reading problem or a misguided worldview. Many rich people give to charity if anything because they do get a tax write-off for it. And for some reason Obama wants to cancel the tax write-offs. Maybe he expects the rich to give out of the goodness of their heart and if they don't then they are the bad guy. And as I stated before, if Obama wants the rich to give then he should be the first to donate his entire salary to help others. He will make over $400K as president this year and he has millions already; he can afford it, right?
It's not that conservatives hate the poor, but, rather that they strive for a society with a rigid class structure.
Effectively, this works out to be a very bad deal for the poor, leaving them in a situation that is literally hopeless.
I hope by your stated opinion above that you aren't implying that the rich are somehow responsible for making sure the poor aren't as poor as they could be if left to their own devices? If so, my first question is: who exactly dictated it is the rich person's responsibility to take care of everyone else who makes less than them? Secondly, it is one thing for someone to *voluntarily* give something to charity. It is another thing entirely for the government to *take* that same thing away from that person (i.e. their hard-earned money) through whatever means they think makes it look good (i.e. taxes to fund social programs) and give it to whoever the gov't sees fit (i.e. the poor) using the excuse that the gov't somehow believes they can handle a rich person's property (i.e. money) better than that rich person.
To all the rich liberals who believe the rich conservatives should be sharing the wealth, I say they should be willing to give all their salary first to be an example before they force others to follow suit. Maybe Obama should take a $1 salary and give everything else to all the people who thought that Obama was going to pay for their mortgage if elected? The U.S. already has programs for the poor that people can give voluntarily to in order to help those less fortunate. If the democrats want the same thing for healthcare then make it voluntary. I for one work hard for my money and don't want it being used without my consent for someone else's insurance.
I don't think that just because someone feels they *shouldn't* be responsible for everyone who is less fortunate it means they want a rigid class structure. For those with jobs, we all work hard at them to earn our income. Obama is basically creating a 2 class society: lower middle class and an upper middle class. He is doing this by arbitrarily stating that anyone who rakes in over $250k a year is now deemed rich by his personal standard. Who is he to say who is considered rich and is therefore responsible for others less fortunate? At least $250k includes himself unless he is exempt due to being president. That "rhich" person must now give some of his money, through taxes, to the gov't so it can be redistributed for whatever the gov't deems necessary. Currently that reason is for universal healthcare.
Why doesn't Obama propose an N class society based on various income levels just like the federal income tax brackets which already exist for purposes of determining who pays for who's healthcare? Every person in a particular bracket in effect passes their money down to people in the next lower bracket through taxes. Obviously the people in the lowest bracket get to keep all their money that others had to pay in to taxes that will eventually be used to pay for others' healthcare, plus they get free money from the people in the bracket above them. Now based on that scenario, don't you think all the people in the middle brackets would be pissed that they have to support the people in the bracket below them? That is how the rich feel now based on how they know the 2 class system will operate if implemented. In an N class society created to support universal healthcare, even some of the "poor" would complain. We don't have the luxury of them seeing the problem of having to support others with their own money in a 2 class society. In a 2 class society, you are either being supported with health insurance paid for by the rich or you are the rich having to pay for someone else's insurance. If some of the people who would normally benefit from this had to become a person who supported someone else in this manner we wouldn't have so many poor people supporting this idea.
To say the rich can afford supporting someone else is typical of a democrat who feels everything should be fair. M
I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers. I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&T.
I can't speak for all situations but for the iPhone I believe you should ask Steve Jobs why he wanted to stick with AT&T and why AT&T let it happen. AT&T wasn't his first choice but it ended up being the only choice to get the iPhone. I bet the carriers and the phone manufacturers make some type of deals where it is somehow beneficial to only sell phones through specific carriers rather than all of them.
Yes there is. You just have to remember that the actions of the few do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the many. In the case of radicals, by definitions they do not represent the beliefs of the many.
Slashdot Mirror
"Morbid obesity is one of the most common findings turning up in severely ill patients," said Nikki Shindo, who is leading the investigation of swine flu patients at the WHO in Geneva. "It's a huge problem."
That is just wrong.
13' RGB monitor (with contrast/brightness knobs);
Holy shit! My big screen LCD isn't even that big. How expensive was THAT?
C'mon. Why is it that people who are otherwise intelligent, rational thinkers suddenly turn that part of their brains off when it is time to attack Christianity?
Because for 1) it is easier to just turn that part of their brains off (i.e. "la la la I can't hear you" mentality) and 2) it is fun to bash others, 3) especially Christians/conservatives by those who feel they are more elite because they *may* be more "rational". Kind of ironic that the people doing the bashing feel they are the more rational group. They seem on the immature side to me. As an aside, I am pleasantly surprised to see many people comment on this submission with facts about the Bible. I didn't realize there were this many people who understood and/or knew the Bible. I know that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with it but hey, at least they are willing to read it and sometimes that is at least enough to agree to disagree.
I will say this though. Heavy metal rules and I would gladly fuck you with a broom handle. Or maybe my nun chucks. Or maybe I would fuck you in the ass with a fucking sword you piece of shit.
You are either gay or you have a weird ass fetish (i.e. rationalized gayness). By the way, you spelled nunchaku wrong.
This is not a hardware RAID controller; it's a SATA controller with a software RAID implementation.
I never meant to claim that it was hardware RAID.
I actually have a HighPoint RocketRAID 2300 controller in my system now. It has 4 internal SATA connections using a PCIe interface. I just ordered another one as well from newegg.com. I haven't had any issues with the current one and I've had it for a couple years now. The new one will run a 1.5TB RAID 1 array. This controller supposedly has Linux drivers available for it but mine is in a Windows system so can't verify Linux support. The controller is $119 from newegg and I think it is a good deal. My current controller has a 2 drive RAID 0 and a separate 2 drive RAID 1 array.
to say the least, however:
The endosymbiotic hypothesis maintains that eukaryotes evolved from symbiotic interactions between bacteria. There is plenty of evidence for that in chloroplasts and mitochondria: they have their own DNA; their membranes, their DNA, their ribosomes all resemble those of bacteria.
This is similar to the statement that says correlation does not equal causation. Just because I have brown hair and someone across the country also has brown hair and many other similarities doesn't mean both of us are related. At least they called it a "hypothesis" instead of forcing us to accept it as verified fact.
Well, first of all, humans are still evolving.
Is that opinion or a fact that can be backed up with some solid evidence?
I'll take his point, but I'll say none of this just began with literacy. The change in our evolution, if you can call it that, started with culture, and culture started a lot earlier than books, a lot earlier, in fact, than humans. Our closest relatives, the higher primates, show, to one degree or another, those abilities too.
If we must feel compelled to apply the term "evolution" to anything that changes over time then I'd have to say that the fact our culture is changing is not part of *our* evolution. It is the evolution of culture itself although we could be said to be defined by our culture but it still isn't changing us directly. As someone else said, it is just semantics, and even that assumes you believe in any instance of evolution anyway.
Contrast this with theological reasoning: "the bible says so, therefore it is true. End of discussion."
Scientists are free to prove the Bible right/wrong. The problem is they do not. Why do they not even try? Are they afraid that they will prove it right?
just about anything in the universe, and specifically various aspects of this planet, is becoming more like numerology than anything else. Case in point:
But on the other, they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere. That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comet.
Any pattern they find seems to make scientists believe something is true, no matter how improbable. Scientists are only seeing what they want to see in this data. Despite this method of guessing based on simply "interesting patterns" and hoping they are right, these very same people consider taking on faith what the Holy Bible says about the origins of the world as being ludicrous. Ahhh, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning hours. Flame on for bucking the *insertGroupNamehere* agenda.
If any other news "event" has ever caused there to be such a massive amount of searching - it worries me that it is a celebrity causing this and that people aren't this into any "real" news that actually impacts them.
It isn't necessarily the "impact" factor but the fact that no one expected it. It was a sudden death. He was 50 years old. This is similar to the death of Heath Ledger. When someone young dies people are going to be shocked and wonder what happened. This is also one of the reasons for an autopsy. Old people who die usually don't have an autopsy done on their bodies unless something is out of whack. Someone dying young is one of those "out of whack" things. It is a curiousity thing just like staring at a car wreck and death is something anyone can relate to.
Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
Since we're talking about health care I can safely say that, in this case, the lower income people are the very people this initiative is supposed to help. It is the rich and possibly the middle class who will have to pay, against their will (through higher taxes), in order to pay for health insurance for others. Those with lower incomes get to sit back and watch the government and/or the rich people pay for everything for them. That is how things work when a Democrat is in office. Daddy gov't will help them by using the money from other people.
for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees aren't really scientists after all. Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist? Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack, no matter their credentials. It's always good to know the government doesn't allow censorship.
In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'
So you feel the government should tax you as much as they want as long as the money is going to the poor or maybe even any good cause they come up with as the excuse for taxing you to take your money legally? Why not choose to handle your money yourself rather than let someone else do it? If anything, we can handle our money better as individuals than the government can (those with excessive debt not included; they are as bad as the government with money management). The Bible does state we should pay our taxes no matter whether the money goes to causes we agree with but that doesn't mean the government should tax us for anything they want. We can only be taxed so much. If we are to be taxed to help others then *everyone* should be taxed fairly to support universal healthcare. There is nothing wrong with paying taxes or giving to charity. There *is* something wrong with being *forced* to give to charity through *excessive* taxes. But I understand your point of view and respect it just as you respect mine.
You don't want the poor and lazy to get the money you worked for... Jesus says you're screwed. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans, this is about you violating your theology hardcore.
I never said all charity should be stopped. I just don't want the government deciding for me how much I should be giving and especially raising taxes so that people who are special enough to be personally considered by Obama to be "rich" have to pay extra in taxes because Obama wants everyone to have health insurance. Given your logic, we need to setup a multi-class system such that the ultra-rich pass down their money to provide insurance to the rich, then the rich pass down a certain amount (through taxes of course) to provide insurance for those in the middle class that don't have it, and so on. Eventually the poor will be taken care of through the eventually flow down of money from the ultra-rich and everyone is happy.....everyone who is poor of course. Anyone in the upper classes are going to complain that their money is going towards someone else's insurance. If it were setup that way not many people would be for universal healthcare because a lot more people would be affected and realize that maybe they shouldn't be a proponent for an idea that makes us get taxed more in order to pay for insurance for those who can't get it. The way it is being proposd now you have the people who benefit from it in one class and the others who are basically going to be paying for it in another. Those who want it say "the rich can afford it". With that logic we should tax them til they have nothing left. When does it stop? People who make more money get taxed more already. They are being taxed enough. Maybe, just maybe, the people who don't have insurance should be the only ones paying into the system in order to fund it? Hmm, that would make more sense but it doesn't punish the rich so it just won't work for Obama's agenda of socialism.
I feel your pain but I'd go for someone who is religious over someone who is a "smart geek girl". There are other qualities I would prefer as well of course. If you want a techy girl then you are already limiting your options. If you want a religious girl your odds are a bit better. A lot of geeks are not into religion (and I'm not implying that being into religion means you are devout) so if you are a geek and a churchgoer then obviously don't expect to meet a geeky religious girl because that is almost an oxymoron in the first place, let alone a female being geeky. As you said, it is similar to the classical engineering problem. Is it possible to find a fast, good, cheap girl? :)
I know church and slashdot don't directly contradict each other. I was making a quick general statement that someone else (didn't check before I replied to this as to who it was to give him/her proper credit, sorry) properly expanded on for me after someone else made a similar statement to yours. There is a general correlation between geeks and anti-religious sentiments. I'm an exception and obviously you are too. I know many geeks though who are atheists, etc. Obviously geeks are going to congregate on slashdot and therefore the anti-religious sentiments are going to exist on slashdot. The anti-religious attitudes are very evident when articles about evolution are submitted and when I make comments about religion in whatever aspect that would run counter to what the general population of slashdot think or feel. If you speak out against religion on slashdot you get modded up otherwise you get modded down. I try to minimize the down mods by making comments like I did to make people realize that, in this particular case, my idea of meeting people at church really can work but it isn't for everyone but I was being fair to the submitter and gave him the option to let *him* decide whether he thought it would be a good idea. I didn't ever see the Troll mod (by the time I saw my post it was at 4/Interesting I think) but obviously other people thought it best that they decide whether it was a good idea rather than letting the submitter decide. Again, that is the anti-religious sentiment that is prevalent on this site. When the modders disagree (whether the message is right or wrong) they mod down. It is sad, actually.
Well, I only have 120 characters to alert others to my beliefs and/or opinions. Had I been given more space I could have espoused on the fact that I do not look down on the poor. Instead I'll do that now since you prompted it. First, you made the wrong assumption about my signature statement. I'm not against helping the poor or the needy. I do it when I feel like it and I do it based on whether I can afford it. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily giving to charity. Many rich people do that if only because they get a tax break. But all that is not the same when the government wants to take my money from me and give it to someone else. That isn't the government's job. That is my job to manage my own money. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, especially to the extent the federal gov't currently does and the fact they want to do more in the near future, is just not right and it is *that* that I am against.
Obama has no qualms about taxing the rich even more than they are now simply to pay for someone else's health insurance. It is like the rich should be giving all their money away to the point where they have nothing left for themselves and that would be okay by some of the people who are less fortunate if it means that all the poor or under-privileged have been taken care of. People say of the rich that "they can afford it". Maybe they can but it isn't their responsibility and they should not be forced to do that with their money. You can only tax the rich so much before it has a very bad effect. If we aren't already there, we're almost to that turning point now; universal healthcare-related tax increases may put us past that edge. I think if Obama wants the rich to help out the poor or those w/o insurance then maybe he should take a $1 salary every year during his term and give the money as his own contribution to universal healthcare and make all the Democrats in Congress join him instead of making the decision to do it with other people's money just because they fit his personal and arbitrary definition of "rich".
If you attend church (fat chance of someone who uses slashdot doing that I know) then that would provide a good starting point. If you have a job then you can maybe organize a get-together after work with the guys. Being that the people are from the workplace, you could probably invite some women and they wouldn't feel as uncomfortable because they know you from work. The cafe' area in a Barnes and Noble might be a good place too. These aren't necessarily geared toward technology but if you are looking for women you basically have to avoid technology anyway.
I'm not saying that the ultra-rich should support the poor.
Ok. Good thing I didn't assume too much then about your intent.
I'm saying that they shouldn't pay their workers wages that prevent them from doing anything above the bare minimum of supporting themselves.
I agree but what is the bare minimum? Legally they can't pay below minimum wage and the government of course sets that bar so unless a company is doing something illegal they are going to be at least paying people the minimum the government believes people need to survive, assuming the employees are in the U.S. As for sweatshops abroad, people choose to work at those jobs for that low wage because it is better than they can get elsewhere in their country. And because they are willing to work for very very low wages it actually means less Americans have jobs because they *can't* work for those same low wages because the cost of living in the U.S. is too high so the jobs are outsourced.
The very notion that 'ultra rich' should even exist as an entire class is troubling. I have no problem rewarding successes, although it's beginning to show that wealth is increasingly hereditary. Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet both deserve their wealth, being exceptionally good at what they do, and deserve to be rewarded for their successes. However, these individuals are most certainly the exception rather than the rule. Although the Bush and Kennedy families have both a number of exceptionally brilliant minds, they've also had a number of complete idiots who managed work their way into positions of power equal to or greater than their similarly-named relatives.
We shouldn't be trying to pick and choose how anyone becomes rich. It could be through inheritance and that original amount could have either been hard-earned or it could have been won through the lottery. It isn't anyone's business how someone is rich and whether they deserve it or not. They may not deserve it but that doesn't mean it should be taken away either.
Nobody *EVER* suggested a complete and total equalization of wages, as it would indeed cause a complete and total stagnation of the economy. However, when the working classes have nothing to aspire to, you experience that same exact stagnation.
I never said anyone did suggest that but that would seem to be a possibility using the logic that Obama and many liberals are using lately with their agenda. I would hope they would never be so stupid to attempt that but if they want everything to be fair in life that is one way to make it happen. It is just taking the fairness idea really far.
However, when the working classes have nothing to aspire to, you experience that same exact stagnation.
I agree when there are no aspirations you get stagnation but when are there no aspirations? THis country provides the ability for people who have the aspirations to achieve them. People came here 200 years ago with nothing or very little and built business empires or at least made a living here with no problems. If you are suggesting that the working class has a possibility of stagnating due to lack of appropriate wages then I say that it comes down to the individuals to change their life so they get out of their rut. There was a movie that Will Smith was in a year or so ago. It was a true story and he played a guy (forget his name) that was homeless but the guy eventually became a stock broker. He had a son and he said his inspiration and motivation came from realizing he had to feed and clothe his son. Point being that if someone can come from being homeless to being a stock broker then anyone can do anything they set their mind to.
Additionally, once an ultra-wealthy social class emerges and entrenches itself, various other social problems begin to emerge, and we begin to see sweatshops and debters prisons reappear. This is an extremely well-established his
It's only funny when someone points out that TARP is Bush and the Republicans' fault. (And before you say "but clinton!" because I know you're thinking it: Bush canceled enforcement of the CRA in 2003. Fat lot of good that did, because the CRA wasn't responsible.
Sorry but I don't know what CRA is to understand your message (and too lazy to look it up). However, as far as TARP being Bush's and the Republicans' fault. I don't deny that it was stupid to have TARP passed. Nobody should have given any money to anyone. The Republicans acted just like the typical Democrats: wanting to give money to people from other taxpayers and in this case it is even worse because these companies caused their own problems through greed. With that said, Congress passed the bill using a Democrat majority so that doesn't make it solely the Republicans' fault. And if we're going to talk about a pissing contest for how much money can be spent the fastest then Obama wins hands down for wasting the most so fast and that excludes the $300 billion or so that Bush left for Obama to spend (not sure if he spent it already or not). He has yet to pass the universal healthcare bill and he hasn't even been in office 6 months either. I will pity this country 4 years from now.
Dude, seriously, sticking your wallet up your ass, jamming your hands over your ears and shouting "mine! mine! mine!" would send the same message as your post in a much shorter space of time.
Dude, actually, it wouldn't. I'm not against voluntarily giving people money. I donate what I feel I can afford and hopefully it is on par with what others donate for whatever organization or cause is asking for money on any given day. I don't donate all the time though. But the key point there is that it is what I feel I can afford. I'm not rich but I give voluntarily. The government shouldn't be the one to decide who is deemed rich enough to be forced to give some of their money in extra taxes in order to pay for someone else's insurance or whatever. My original message stated there is a difference between giving to charity and having the government take from the rich to give to the poor. No where did I state that conservatives should be selfish and say "mine! mine! mine!". If you think that is what I said or if you just think that is how I feel, as well as other conservatives, then you either have a reading problem or a misguided worldview. Many rich people give to charity if anything because they do get a tax write-off for it. And for some reason Obama wants to cancel the tax write-offs. Maybe he expects the rich to give out of the goodness of their heart and if they don't then they are the bad guy. And as I stated before, if Obama wants the rich to give then he should be the first to donate his entire salary to help others. He will make over $400K as president this year and he has millions already; he can afford it, right?
It's not that conservatives hate the poor, but, rather that they strive for a society with a rigid class structure. Effectively, this works out to be a very bad deal for the poor, leaving them in a situation that is literally hopeless.
I hope by your stated opinion above that you aren't implying that the rich are somehow responsible for making sure the poor aren't as poor as they could be if left to their own devices? If so, my first question is: who exactly dictated it is the rich person's responsibility to take care of everyone else who makes less than them? Secondly, it is one thing for someone to *voluntarily* give something to charity. It is another thing entirely for the government to *take* that same thing away from that person (i.e. their hard-earned money) through whatever means they think makes it look good (i.e. taxes to fund social programs) and give it to whoever the gov't sees fit (i.e. the poor) using the excuse that the gov't somehow believes they can handle a rich person's property (i.e. money) better than that rich person.
To all the rich liberals who believe the rich conservatives should be sharing the wealth, I say they should be willing to give all their salary first to be an example before they force others to follow suit. Maybe Obama should take a $1 salary and give everything else to all the people who thought that Obama was going to pay for their mortgage if elected? The U.S. already has programs for the poor that people can give voluntarily to in order to help those less fortunate. If the democrats want the same thing for healthcare then make it voluntary. I for one work hard for my money and don't want it being used without my consent for someone else's insurance.
I don't think that just because someone feels they *shouldn't* be responsible for everyone who is less fortunate it means they want a rigid class structure. For those with jobs, we all work hard at them to earn our income. Obama is basically creating a 2 class society: lower middle class and an upper middle class. He is doing this by arbitrarily stating that anyone who rakes in over $250k a year is now deemed rich by his personal standard. Who is he to say who is considered rich and is therefore responsible for others less fortunate? At least $250k includes himself unless he is exempt due to being president. That "rhich" person must now give some of his money, through taxes, to the gov't so it can be redistributed for whatever the gov't deems necessary. Currently that reason is for universal healthcare.
Why doesn't Obama propose an N class society based on various income levels just like the federal income tax brackets which already exist for purposes of determining who pays for who's healthcare? Every person in a particular bracket in effect passes their money down to people in the next lower bracket through taxes. Obviously the people in the lowest bracket get to keep all their money that others had to pay in to taxes that will eventually be used to pay for others' healthcare, plus they get free money from the people in the bracket above them. Now based on that scenario, don't you think all the people in the middle brackets would be pissed that they have to support the people in the bracket below them? That is how the rich feel now based on how they know the 2 class system will operate if implemented. In an N class society created to support universal healthcare, even some of the "poor" would complain. We don't have the luxury of them seeing the problem of having to support others with their own money in a 2 class society. In a 2 class society, you are either being supported with health insurance paid for by the rich or you are the rich having to pay for someone else's insurance. If some of the people who would normally benefit from this had to become a person who supported someone else in this manner we wouldn't have so many poor people supporting this idea.
To say the rich can afford supporting someone else is typical of a democrat who feels everything should be fair. M
I've never understood why you could only use certain phones with certain carriers. I've never used an iphone before until yesterday and I really liked it, but was extremely dismayed by being stuck with AT&T.
I can't speak for all situations but for the iPhone I believe you should ask Steve Jobs why he wanted to stick with AT&T and why AT&T let it happen. AT&T wasn't his first choice but it ended up being the only choice to get the iPhone. I bet the carriers and the phone manufacturers make some type of deals where it is somehow beneficial to only sell phones through specific carriers rather than all of them.
a religion of peace
There is no such thing.
Yes there is. You just have to remember that the actions of the few do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the many. In the case of radicals, by definitions they do not represent the beliefs of the many.