I'd propose that as a solution, if it didn't had a variety of ethical and moral issues.
You've entirely lost your compass. The most fundamental basis of ethics and morality starts with choosing life, and existence itself, over death. Since you have chosen death as preferable, every decision that flows from that is by definition amoral.
I'm going to tell you guys an important secret: nobody except nerds wants a non-iPad tablet. Everybody wants the iPad, and if you buy somebody a different tablet, they will be secretly angry about you. You can nerd-rage about this all you want, but it is true. As has been said before: there is not a tablet market, there is an iPad market.
Meh. I doubt that's true. A friend of mine (very non-geek) has an iPad, and her son recently came home with a Nook Tablet. She likes it better than the iPad.
Unfortunately, it looks like Amazon is going to sell a lot of Kindle Fires to non-geeks just because they have better marketing, and a lot of people won't look at or even know about the Nook tablets, which are much better products.
So the problem is figuring out how to murder about 6-10 billion humans over the next few decades without wrecking the global economy.
They're working on it. Better top-down control of how food is produced and distributed is getting rolled out now. Studies on lab-created viruses and rolling out vaccines to the general population is an important component, too.
they can point and say "See, we're doing something" to keep the right-wingers happy.
Drug prohibition isn't supported by "right-wingers" - it's supported by statists on both sides. Go take a look at the Obama administration's response to the White House petition to legalize marijuana. And if that's not enough to convince you, consider that the left-coast's most left-leaning state could not even muster votes to legalize marijuana... how inept is that?
If you read this paper carefully, you'll see that your proposed action would reverse most of the warming. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract
Keeping people alive and available to clean up the atmosphere would reverse all of it. We control the climate knob. Got to be around to do it though.
FTFA:
This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.
You do know there are other factors than CO2, right? In fact, historically, CO2 reacts to climate changes, not the other way around. There are many factors that we don't control. The paper also makes assumptions about the total impact of CO2's contribution to warming, based on modeled forcing factors that now have been shown to be incorrect according to observation. In fact, it makes a LOT of assumptions.
Look at it this way. Climate has changed dramatically many times before we got here. It has changed dramatically while we were here but not using fossil fuels at all. Claiming that suddenly we have all necessary knowledge and skills to control it now is the height of arrogant conceit.
I think the real problem is that there aren't nearly enough voters who agree (or care enough about) that these things are problems. If we want change, we'll have to somehow convince the majority to vote differently than they are now.
I mean, we'd need support either way.
It's set up that way. You pretty much get 2 choices. And there is a large proportion of voters who care only about 1 issue. Pro Choice / Pro Life is a big one - some people will select a candidate based ONLY on what position they take there. It's not like there's going to be any significant changes there either way.
That like saying "I went to the store and bought socks, and they charged me 8% sales tax, which is on money I already paid taxes for because it came from my income."
Also true. But there is a deduction you can take on your federal income taxes for all the state sales taxes you paid. What's your point? You're claiming what I said was bullshit, and your example was something that is just as true. So your call of bullshit is overruled.
And frankly, the rich should be gloriously happy they aren't paying SALES TAX as well considering they are buying and selling.
Sales taxes don't apply to things like stocks and bonds, but they do apply to things like real estate, homes, most tangible businesses and assets. If a national sales tax were to be implemented, it probably would apply to more transactions. Is that what you're advocating?
Tell me, why is there one set of laws for the rest of us and another set of laws for the rich?
There's not. There is one set of laws for everyone, with the exception of certain looters that can buy government favoritism through political pull. Like Warren Buffett has done. You didn't address that at all.
Why is it that if I buy socks, I have to pay 8% tax, but if it buy stocks, I pay 0% tax?
Sales taxes are imposed by the states and localities, not by the federal government (you're really naive about this stuff, aren't you? No wonder you're fooled but the Buffett lie). I pay 5% for most things where I live, but nothing for food and drugs. Some people in the US don't pay sales taxes at all. If you don't like the sales taxes in your local jurisdiction, I'd recommend you get involved with your local representatives and do something about it. Local politics is very easy to influence, much more so than at the federal level.
And then you're screaming about money earned on those stocks? Get over it. Capital Gains should be taxed at 30% at least. It's earned income, just like the interest in your bank account.
As I already explained, the Cap Gains rate has been played with a lot, and it's generating more revenue now than it has at higher rates. So if you raise the rate, then you also need to raise more revenue somewhere else (like the middle class - everybody's favorite target) in order to make up for the losses. It seems pretty self-defeating from an economic standpoint.
It's earned income, just like the interest in your bank account.
Capital gains and interest income are both considered unearned. The difference is risk. FDIC insures your bank deposits, so your principal is not at risk. There are tax-free and tax-deferred ways of earning interest income. Capital gains investments generally carry much higher risk. The lower rate provides the incentive to invest in the private economy (you know - where all the money comes from). If it was taxed the same, there would be a lot less capital for businesses and commerce, and it would be MUCH harder to start or expand any kind of business. If you're going to get slammed for the same tax on risky investments as you when your principal is not at risk, where you put your money?
It's absolutely amazing how much traction this lie is getting. It's like there are people that have been trained not to use any critical thinking skills.
In fact, the very wealthy pay a far lower percentage on their money earned that you do.
That's just entirely false. Everyone pays a lower percentage on UNearned income. Earned income is taxed on the margins, and the more you make, the higher percentage you pay, right up to the top rate of 35%. Capital gains is where you have taken your savings (that were previously earned, somehow, and have already paid income taxes on at the EARNED rate), and you've bought some companies or real estate or commodity that you think will increase in value. If it doesn't, you lose your money. If it does, you can sell it and then the government takes another 15% and you keep the rest.
You can check the IRS tax tables and see that the whole thing is a lie. They show that those making under $100,000/year pay an average of no more than 12.3% of their income in taxes, while those making above $500,000 pay an average of no less than 26.3% of their income in taxes. And keep in mind that while wage earners pay 7.5% for SS payroll taxes, employers pay 7.5% extra for EACH employee, and self-employed earners pay the full 15%.
This whole argument is about investments, not wages. Capital gains are taxed at 15%. That rate is set because it was shown to bring in more revenue. We're talking about reducing the deficit and increasing tax revenues, right? So why would you raise the Capital gains rate when it's going to decrease the revenues?
The real reason that Buffett is shilling for Obama's class-warfare tax increases has nothing to do with his politics, it's about getting favors from Washington, like lots of rich people do. So what did Buffett get? How about a $170 million tax break for his BN train Santa Fe railroad.
It's this kind of favoritism people should be complaining about. There are wealthy people that earn their money, and there are wealthy people that steal it by government fiat. It's wrong to lump them all together and try to punish them all.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'? Are you arguing that the vast majority of these benchmarks are useless? I can't distinguish between which tests use all of the cores and which don't, but it's not my field.
Obviously. The high performance server market these days doesn't really include web and mail servers. Most are being deployed for one of 2 purposes: (1) Large database servers, and (2) Virtual Server hosts. Both of those utilization of servers will take advantage of this architecture, unlike the contrived "benchmarks" used to test these chips.
I haven't deployed a single server NOT used in a virtual environment in over 2 years. We are even deploying database servers as virtual these days, because the backup and fault-tolerant features are so good. These new Bulldozers look like they'll be on the list for the next set of hardware I need.
Not really. There is evidence that the collective activities of 7 billion people may be contributing to the current warming trend - the amount of that contribution is very much up for debate.
That's a far cry from "we control the climate". If that was the case, we could simply reverse the warming. Kill every human on earth and it still may not have a significant effect.
The fundamental impediment has been fighting a fossil fuel corporate monolith which has hijacked our government. Its time for us to take back our future.
You mean we need to hijack our government to ban fossil fuel production and throw more money at some other industries? Not sure that's really going to work like you think it will.
My Uncle Dan was a rich man, and his riches came from pure luck. His first lucky stroke was being born with intelligence, creativity, and good eye-hand coordination, all fairly rare traits. The second stroke of luck (which surely seemed bad luck at the time) was having his ship torpedoed in WWII and sent to a hospital, where he met his future partner, a man who'd lost his leg in that war (another stroke of luck) who was a good salesman (more luck).
Oh, I see... No one is allowed to be rewarded for their talents, or for taking advantage of opportunities they are presented with. That's not "luck" - it's making the most of what you have. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" - Is that it? Yea, total failure. Resources are accumulated by people with ability because they are better able to utilize them - the same type of reward system used in natural selection. It may not seem fair to you, but it's means everyone benefits. Your moronic idea of allocating resources based on need is nothing but a spiral to poverty and death for everyone.
You're responding to the wrong person, but I'll respond back anyway, because I liked the OP's post. "Voluntary trade" includes all the activities you're referring to, but includes the end result which is trading value for value. Focusing on producers of goods instead of the needs of consumers is a trick of interventionist "planned economies". Producing something that no one want wastes wealth. If you're a programmer, you only create wealth IF the results are useful to someone else (generally that means someone is spending less time on a necessary task made more efficient by the program).
I haven't stolen, nor am I rich. Do I deserve to be?
The OP meant that rich people that have not stolen deserve to be rich. Although I sort of agree with you that someone born into wealth can turn into a parasite by wasting the opportunities.
I would posit that Sam Walton stole his wealth
There's a solid argument for it.
by exploiting his workers
That's not it - or at least it's by far the weakest one. "Exploiting workers", especially today, is a red herring, or a propaganda tool. Workers can be exploited only by their own consent. I know that will raise your ire, but it is demonstrably true. Labor is cheap, skilled labor pays better, and these are both voluntary trades. If you don't like your wages, find someone who values them more or just work for yourself. Issues that prevent individuals doing that often come down to government-sponsored protectionism, over burdensome regulation (barriers to entry often supported by incumbent lobbies), or well-meaning but short-sighted policies that promote government dependency over personal interdependence.
One can get rich honestly, but it's damned hard to do. It takes a shitload of all kinds of luck.
That's more the case now that it was 30 or even 20 years ago. These days "luck" has less to do with it than "pull", and that's a problem with government interventionism, once again.
Really? That tired old disinformation? You're perpetuating a lie - I have to think you are doing it on purpose. I'll just let Ron Paul respond to that bullcrap the same way he did to Chris Matthews.
Or you could just communicate with your developers, be aware of the work they're doing and judge their performance based on their effective productivity from your perspective. I've heard this called "management" before, but I know that word has been twisted to mean something more sinister as of late.
That won't work, because we laid off all the middle managers years ago. Developers are all exactly the same - we just need to know which ones to slot into the critical path.
There's only two ways to acquire wealth, either voluntary trade or theft. There are two ways to steal, with the help of the government or without it. Many wealthy people have acquired wealth through stealing with the help of the government. Many others have not. Those that have not stolen, deserve to be rich. Trying to argue against the concentration of wealth even in the cases of people simply acquiring it through voluntary trade is absurd and immoral. This isn't about rich vs. poor but rather trade vs. theft. Occupy Wallstreet seems not to be against theft, but who's doing the stealing, the poor from the rich rather than the rich from the poor.
Very nice. I'm going to use this quote. Glad you posted it anonymously, so I don't have to bother with attribution.
D) The 1% to be held more responsible/accountable for their actions, given that they have more power in controlling the direction of the country, than any other 1%.
Yep, that's a good point. They actually could have a significant influence. And some of them probably do. Unfortunately you're talking about a herd of 3 1/2 million cats, all going in different directions with different ideas. Most of them actually work very hard for the money they earn, and that's their focus - politics is just something to navigate around.
Frankly, to me, if you reach that level, even as a household, you need to start taking care of your civic responsibilities. The US is built on a participatory government, and I'm afraid part of the issue is that most of those folks are simply absent from the process and ignorant of the policies that don't directly affect their livelihood. Really inexcusable.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
I just can't keep up anymore. Do you know that just *yesterday* I learned that owling had replace planking? And even that still probably leaves me several memes back.
That's quite affordable for a car that runs on electricity which is far, far cheaper than gas, and requires much less maintenance.
Maybe for you, or other people that buy a new car every three or four years. Get back to me when I can buy and eight-year-old model on the used car market for around 2 grand. Oh, wait, that will never happen because those cars won't last that long without a $5000 battery replacement.
.The discussion was specifically about war crimes, not general complaints over all.
The discussion was about Bush's foreign policy. And Obama has been getting shit from Left and Right on foreign policy.
(see Glen Greenwald (L) and National Review(R))
It was also about "most Americans" being okay with it. Sure, there's always a few critics. But the general tone has been along the lines of "Oh, the President sent drones and killed an American citizen that never even had a trial AND the guy's family? Woohoo! Good for him!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'd propose that as a solution, if it didn't had a variety of ethical and moral issues.
You've entirely lost your compass. The most fundamental basis of ethics and morality starts with choosing life, and existence itself, over death. Since you have chosen death as preferable, every decision that flows from that is by definition amoral.
I'm going to tell you guys an important secret: nobody except nerds wants a non-iPad tablet. Everybody wants the iPad, and if you buy somebody a different tablet, they will be secretly angry about you. You can nerd-rage about this all you want, but it is true. As has been said before: there is not a tablet market, there is an iPad market.
Meh. I doubt that's true. A friend of mine (very non-geek) has an iPad, and her son recently came home with a Nook Tablet. She likes it better than the iPad.
Unfortunately, it looks like Amazon is going to sell a lot of Kindle Fires to non-geeks just because they have better marketing, and a lot of people won't look at or even know about the Nook tablets, which are much better products.
We do not want more energy, we want less people.
So kill yourself. One less person filled with self-hatred would be a good thing.
I'll be glad when these clowns finally sell their Exxon stock so I don't have to listen to them whine any more in the face of the inevitable.
They're promoting nuclear, not fossil fuels.
So the problem is figuring out how to murder about 6-10 billion humans over the next few decades without wrecking the global economy.
They're working on it. Better top-down control of how food is produced and distributed is getting rolled out now. Studies on lab-created viruses and rolling out vaccines to the general population is an important component, too.
they can point and say "See, we're doing something" to keep the right-wingers happy.
Drug prohibition isn't supported by "right-wingers" - it's supported by statists on both sides. Go take a look at the Obama administration's response to the White House petition to legalize marijuana. And if that's not enough to convince you, consider that the left-coast's most left-leaning state could not even muster votes to legalize marijuana... how inept is that?
If you read this paper carefully, you'll see that your proposed action would reverse most of the warming. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract Keeping people alive and available to clean up the atmosphere would reverse all of it. We control the climate knob. Got to be around to do it though.
FTFA:
You do know there are other factors than CO2, right? In fact, historically, CO2 reacts to climate changes, not the other way around. There are many factors that we don't control. The paper also makes assumptions about the total impact of CO2's contribution to warming, based on modeled forcing factors that now have been shown to be incorrect according to observation. In fact, it makes a LOT of assumptions.
Look at it this way. Climate has changed dramatically many times before we got here. It has changed dramatically while we were here but not using fossil fuels at all. Claiming that suddenly we have all necessary knowledge and skills to control it now is the height of arrogant conceit.
I think the real problem is that there aren't nearly enough voters who agree (or care enough about) that these things are problems. If we want change, we'll have to somehow convince the majority to vote differently than they are now.
I mean, we'd need support either way.
It's set up that way. You pretty much get 2 choices. And there is a large proportion of voters who care only about 1 issue. Pro Choice / Pro Life is a big one - some people will select a candidate based ONLY on what position they take there. It's not like there's going to be any significant changes there either way.
That like saying "I went to the store and bought socks, and they charged me 8% sales tax, which is on money I already paid taxes for because it came from my income."
Also true. But there is a deduction you can take on your federal income taxes for all the state sales taxes you paid. What's your point? You're claiming what I said was bullshit, and your example was something that is just as true. So your call of bullshit is overruled.
And frankly, the rich should be gloriously happy they aren't paying SALES TAX as well considering they are buying and selling.
Sales taxes don't apply to things like stocks and bonds, but they do apply to things like real estate, homes, most tangible businesses and assets. If a national sales tax were to be implemented, it probably would apply to more transactions. Is that what you're advocating?
Tell me, why is there one set of laws for the rest of us and another set of laws for the rich?
There's not. There is one set of laws for everyone, with the exception of certain looters that can buy government favoritism through political pull. Like Warren Buffett has done. You didn't address that at all.
Why is it that if I buy socks, I have to pay 8% tax, but if it buy stocks, I pay 0% tax?
Sales taxes are imposed by the states and localities, not by the federal government (you're really naive about this stuff, aren't you? No wonder you're fooled but the Buffett lie). I pay 5% for most things where I live, but nothing for food and drugs. Some people in the US don't pay sales taxes at all. If you don't like the sales taxes in your local jurisdiction, I'd recommend you get involved with your local representatives and do something about it. Local politics is very easy to influence, much more so than at the federal level.
And then you're screaming about money earned on those stocks? Get over it. Capital Gains should be taxed at 30% at least. It's earned income, just like the interest in your bank account.
As I already explained, the Cap Gains rate has been played with a lot, and it's generating more revenue now than it has at higher rates. So if you raise the rate, then you also need to raise more revenue somewhere else (like the middle class - everybody's favorite target) in order to make up for the losses. It seems pretty self-defeating from an economic standpoint.
It's earned income, just like the interest in your bank account.
Capital gains and interest income are both considered unearned. The difference is risk. FDIC insures your bank deposits, so your principal is not at risk. There are tax-free and tax-deferred ways of earning interest income. Capital gains investments generally carry much higher risk. The lower rate provides the incentive to invest in the private economy (you know - where all the money comes from). If it was taxed the same, there would be a lot less capital for businesses and commerce, and it would be MUCH harder to start or expand any kind of business. If you're going to get slammed for the same tax on risky investments as you when your principal is not at risk, where you put your money?
It's absolutely amazing how much traction this lie is getting. It's like there are people that have been trained not to use any critical thinking skills.
In fact, the very wealthy pay a far lower percentage on their money earned that you do.
That's just entirely false. Everyone pays a lower percentage on UNearned income. Earned income is taxed on the margins, and the more you make, the higher percentage you pay, right up to the top rate of 35%. Capital gains is where you have taken your savings (that were previously earned, somehow, and have already paid income taxes on at the EARNED rate), and you've bought some companies or real estate or commodity that you think will increase in value. If it doesn't, you lose your money. If it does, you can sell it and then the government takes another 15% and you keep the rest.
You can check the IRS tax tables and see that the whole thing is a lie. They show that those making under $100,000/year pay an average of no more than 12.3% of their income in taxes, while those making above $500,000 pay an average of no less than 26.3% of their income in taxes. And keep in mind that while wage earners pay 7.5% for SS payroll taxes, employers pay 7.5% extra for EACH employee, and self-employed earners pay the full 15%.
This whole argument is about investments, not wages. Capital gains are taxed at 15%. That rate is set because it was shown to bring in more revenue. We're talking about reducing the deficit and increasing tax revenues, right? So why would you raise the Capital gains rate when it's going to decrease the revenues?
The real reason that Buffett is shilling for Obama's class-warfare tax increases has nothing to do with his politics, it's about getting favors from Washington, like lots of rich people do. So what did Buffett get? How about a $170 million tax break for his BN train Santa Fe railroad.
It's this kind of favoritism people should be complaining about. There are wealthy people that earn their money, and there are wealthy people that steal it by government fiat. It's wrong to lump them all together and try to punish them all.
Do the majority of real world uses 'fill all cores'? Are you arguing that the vast majority of these benchmarks are useless? I can't distinguish between which tests use all of the cores and which don't, but it's not my field.
Obviously. The high performance server market these days doesn't really include web and mail servers. Most are being deployed for one of 2 purposes: (1) Large database servers, and (2) Virtual Server hosts. Both of those utilization of servers will take advantage of this architecture, unlike the contrived "benchmarks" used to test these chips.
I haven't deployed a single server NOT used in a virtual environment in over 2 years. We are even deploying database servers as virtual these days, because the backup and fault-tolerant features are so good. These new Bulldozers look like they'll be on the list for the next set of hardware I need.
Indeed we do control it. We are making it warmer.
Not really. There is evidence that the collective activities of 7 billion people may be contributing to the current warming trend - the amount of that contribution is very much up for debate.
That's a far cry from "we control the climate". If that was the case, we could simply reverse the warming. Kill every human on earth and it still may not have a significant effect.
The fundamental impediment has been fighting a fossil fuel corporate monolith which has hijacked our government. Its time for us to take back our future.
You mean we need to hijack our government to ban fossil fuel production and throw more money at some other industries? Not sure that's really going to work like you think it will.
Climate is rather obviously something we now control.
Nope, not even close.
So we are safe if we sing it like Shatner?
Not until he's been dead for 70 years...
My Uncle Dan was a rich man, and his riches came from pure luck. His first lucky stroke was being born with intelligence, creativity, and good eye-hand coordination, all fairly rare traits. The second stroke of luck (which surely seemed bad luck at the time) was having his ship torpedoed in WWII and sent to a hospital, where he met his future partner, a man who'd lost his leg in that war (another stroke of luck) who was a good salesman (more luck).
Oh, I see... No one is allowed to be rewarded for their talents, or for taking advantage of opportunities they are presented with. That's not "luck" - it's making the most of what you have. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" - Is that it? Yea, total failure. Resources are accumulated by people with ability because they are better able to utilize them - the same type of reward system used in natural selection. It may not seem fair to you, but it's means everyone benefits. Your moronic idea of allocating resources based on need is nothing but a spiral to poverty and death for everyone.
You're responding to the wrong person, but I'll respond back anyway, because I liked the OP's post. "Voluntary trade" includes all the activities you're referring to, but includes the end result which is trading value for value. Focusing on producers of goods instead of the needs of consumers is a trick of interventionist "planned economies". Producing something that no one want wastes wealth. If you're a programmer, you only create wealth IF the results are useful to someone else (generally that means someone is spending less time on a necessary task made more efficient by the program).
I haven't stolen, nor am I rich. Do I deserve to be?
The OP meant that rich people that have not stolen deserve to be rich. Although I sort of agree with you that someone born into wealth can turn into a parasite by wasting the opportunities.
I would posit that Sam Walton stole his wealth
There's a solid argument for it.
by exploiting his workers
That's not it - or at least it's by far the weakest one. "Exploiting workers", especially today, is a red herring, or a propaganda tool. Workers can be exploited only by their own consent. I know that will raise your ire, but it is demonstrably true. Labor is cheap, skilled labor pays better, and these are both voluntary trades. If you don't like your wages, find someone who values them more or just work for yourself. Issues that prevent individuals doing that often come down to government-sponsored protectionism, over burdensome regulation (barriers to entry often supported by incumbent lobbies), or well-meaning but short-sighted policies that promote government dependency over personal interdependence.
One can get rich honestly, but it's damned hard to do. It takes a shitload of all kinds of luck.
That's more the case now that it was 30 or even 20 years ago. These days "luck" has less to do with it than "pull", and that's a problem with government interventionism, once again.
civil libertarian enthusiast
You obviously know nothing about his positions.
And given his newsletter's comments on race
Really? That tired old disinformation? You're perpetuating a lie - I have to think you are doing it on purpose. I'll just let Ron Paul respond to that bullcrap the same way he did to Chris Matthews.
Or you could just communicate with your developers, be aware of the work they're doing and judge their performance based on their effective productivity from your perspective. I've heard this called "management" before, but I know that word has been twisted to mean something more sinister as of late.
That won't work, because we laid off all the middle managers years ago. Developers are all exactly the same - we just need to know which ones to slot into the critical path.
There's only two ways to acquire wealth, either voluntary trade or theft. There are two ways to steal, with the help of the government or without it. Many wealthy people have acquired wealth through stealing with the help of the government. Many others have not. Those that have not stolen, deserve to be rich. Trying to argue against the concentration of wealth even in the cases of people simply acquiring it through voluntary trade is absurd and immoral. This isn't about rich vs. poor but rather trade vs. theft. Occupy Wallstreet seems not to be against theft, but who's doing the stealing, the poor from the rich rather than the rich from the poor.
Very nice. I'm going to use this quote. Glad you posted it anonymously, so I don't have to bother with attribution.
Try reading the signs instead of listening to right-wing radio. You might start to understand it.
Okay, I'll start.
Discuss
D) The 1% to be held more responsible/accountable for their actions, given that they have more power in controlling the direction of the country, than any other 1%.
Yep, that's a good point. They actually could have a significant influence. And some of them probably do. Unfortunately you're talking about a herd of 3 1/2 million cats, all going in different directions with different ideas. Most of them actually work very hard for the money they earn, and that's their focus - politics is just something to navigate around.
Frankly, to me, if you reach that level, even as a household, you need to start taking care of your civic responsibilities. The US is built on a participatory government, and I'm afraid part of the issue is that most of those folks are simply absent from the process and ignorant of the policies that don't directly affect their livelihood. Really inexcusable.
I just can't keep up anymore. Do you know that just *yesterday* I learned that owling had replace planking? And even that still probably leaves me several memes back.
What? Wait... what happened to "batmanning"?
That's quite affordable for a car that runs on electricity which is far, far cheaper than gas, and requires much less maintenance.
Maybe for you, or other people that buy a new car every three or four years. Get back to me when I can buy and eight-year-old model on the used car market for around 2 grand. Oh, wait, that will never happen because those cars won't last that long without a $5000 battery replacement.
The discussion was about Bush's foreign policy. And Obama has been getting shit from Left and Right on foreign policy.
(see Glen Greenwald (L) and National Review(R))
It was also about "most Americans" being okay with it. Sure, there's always a few critics. But the general tone has been along the lines of "Oh, the President sent drones and killed an American citizen that never even had a trial AND the guy's family? Woohoo! Good for him!"