Because, after all, health care is a totally free market! We totally haven't had anything like Medicare and Medicaid since the 1960s to set up a gargantuan bureaucracy within great loopholes could be exploited.
I dare say that they wouldn't have to stop making the product and take the losses (some of which we'll pay for, as they write them off on their taxes) if the CPSC hadn't SUED them. Is that fair? The US government is playing the same role a patent troll or the RIAA does here.
Everyone (who isn't rich) thinks it's more fair to pay greater share of your income the more you make-- I assume, because a "rich" person already has the "necessities" covered. The "necessities", of course, include all the things that a "poor" person has, including cable HDTV, broadband internet, two cars, smart phones, closets overflowing with name brand clothing, and a 2,000 sq ft house. You know, "stuff". But how would you feel if you were the most successful salesman in your company, working on a 6% commission, and the boss came to you claiming he needed to pay everyone their "fair share"? Therefore, since you were the most successful, he was reducing your commission to 3% so that he could raise everyone else's to 10%? This is what a progressive tax does.
It's stupid for people to let their kids play with executive toys made of rare-earth magnets, too. But that didn't stop the government from shutting down Buckyballs.
Show me in here where it says that the UN or its members can send "monitors":
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
Where is your evidence that this judge was nominated to "legislate social behavior"? First of all, you did not provide evidence of W's intent. Second, a judge is not a legislator. Third, a President is not a legislator.
Of course, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you assume that "Teabaggers" are all GOP members. This is false. Indeed, the Tea Parties didn't exist in 2002, or the 2004 reelection of Bush.
It is not "trespassing" to just come onto someones property and come to the door, just like a trick-or-treater would.
Trick-or-treaters aren't police, although usually one or two are dressed like them. I can legally put out a sign banning solicitors, so why can't I keep police off my lawn unless they have a warrant or it's an emergency?
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about
The next person to say this gets kicked off the internet.
And one of my in-laws insisted last week that Romney said rape victims were "asking for it" and he pledged to kill anyone who voted for Romney. Conclusion? The world is full of easily manipulated idiots.
What makes you think unanimity will be required for anything? The progressive faction wants more "democracy", which demands simple majorities. Unanimity would be seen as a barrier to "progress". In addition, the current "blame the victim" environment we see in regards to terrorism would demand that we censor anyone who dares speak against religious radicals, in the name of safety.
The difference being, if you don't actually know how much your opponents have studied evolution and just summarily claim they must be ignorant of it to disagree.
Don't blame "political correctness" on this, blame crass people like Anne Coulter [huffingtonpost.com] who use the medical term in a derogatory sense towards those who don't have the disability without any sensitivity to those who must actually live with the condition.
Kids were calling each other "retarded" when I was in grade school. I'm pretty sure Coulter didn't invent it. But thanks for surreptitiously injecting your worthless political opinion into the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they cannot write off a federal court judgement against them as a loss. They might be able to write off the actual refunds.
Because, after all, health care is a totally free market! We totally haven't had anything like Medicare and Medicaid since the 1960s to set up a gargantuan bureaucracy within great loopholes could be exploited.
The letter of marque issued by President Madison postdates those amendments, which sets a precedent for this.
I dare say that they wouldn't have to stop making the product and take the losses (some of which we'll pay for, as they write them off on their taxes) if the CPSC hadn't SUED them. Is that fair? The US government is playing the same role a patent troll or the RIAA does here.
Everyone (who isn't rich) thinks it's more fair to pay greater share of your income the more you make-- I assume, because a "rich" person already has the "necessities" covered. The "necessities", of course, include all the things that a "poor" person has, including cable HDTV, broadband internet, two cars, smart phones, closets overflowing with name brand clothing, and a 2,000 sq ft house. You know, "stuff". But how would you feel if you were the most successful salesman in your company, working on a 6% commission, and the boss came to you claiming he needed to pay everyone their "fair share"? Therefore, since you were the most successful, he was reducing your commission to 3% so that he could raise everyone else's to 10%? This is what a progressive tax does.
The average Slashdotter is all for taxation-- "with taxes, I buy civilization"-- until they have to pay for it.
It's stupid for people to let their kids play with executive toys made of rare-earth magnets, too. But that didn't stop the government from shutting down Buckyballs.
But at least it smelled like steak. This probably smells like burnt plastic and despair.
Smart: the car so small, school girls can wear two on each wrist.
Thanks for nothing.
Like you?
I recommend spelling "Khan" correctly before you search for it.
Where is your evidence that this judge was nominated to "legislate social behavior"? First of all, you did not provide evidence of W's intent. Second, a judge is not a legislator. Third, a President is not a legislator.
Of course, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you assume that "Teabaggers" are all GOP members. This is false. Indeed, the Tea Parties didn't exist in 2002, or the 2004 reelection of Bush.
X-ray emitters aren't exactly appropriate for infrared imaging.
Trick-or-treaters aren't police, although usually one or two are dressed like them. I can legally put out a sign banning solicitors, so why can't I keep police off my lawn unless they have a warrant or it's an emergency?
The next person to say this gets kicked off the internet.
People are being disenfranchised in Florida right now too, you fool. Your statist sympathies make you blind to what's really going on. Grow up.
And one of my in-laws insisted last week that Romney said rape victims were "asking for it" and he pledged to kill anyone who voted for Romney. Conclusion? The world is full of easily manipulated idiots.
What makes you think unanimity will be required for anything? The progressive faction wants more "democracy", which demands simple majorities. Unanimity would be seen as a barrier to "progress". In addition, the current "blame the victim" environment we see in regards to terrorism would demand that we censor anyone who dares speak against religious radicals, in the name of safety.
Hahaha! Was it OK when Rahm Emanuel called protestors retarded, then? You're a cretin.
Acts 15:22-29.
QED.
The difference being, if you don't actually know how much your opponents have studied evolution and just summarily claim they must be ignorant of it to disagree.
Except it's not a treaty. Please go find me the name of that treaty. I'll wait.
Well, they certainly aren't getting any better at punctuation usage.
Kids were calling each other "retarded" when I was in grade school. I'm pretty sure Coulter didn't invent it. But thanks for surreptitiously injecting your worthless political opinion into the discussion.
Why do the French need such a powerful gun to surrender?