People are understandably worried that if they were injured and unable to speak for themselves, they would be allowed to die so that their organs could be harvested. Unlikely, but possible.
That product is long, long out of patent protection and available in generic form. No single company should be able to constrict demand. Even if that is the case, then they fall under antitrust laws and a suit should be filed.
I love theoatmeal.com, but logic isn't really his strong suit. His meta-rebuttal still falls short, and his strip on "War in the name of atheism" doesn't address the fact that, indeed, state-enforced atheism was part of the policies of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They didn't actually go to war over atheism, but people were persecuted for opposing the policies. The results were the same: a bunch of dead or imprisoned people.
The fact that their voting numbers were far out of whack when compared to the overall population. Or did you think that Obama got 95% of the popular vote?
I also wonder how many people will vote against Romney because he is Mormon. Aren't we also supposed to be "tolerant" of religion? I do realize that you ultimately choose your own religious beliefs, but the fact is that the law makes no distinction.
Just give it a rest, folks: most people who oppose Obama do so because of his beliefs, his record, and his policies. The racists are an edge case.
You do realize that the federal government has been sandbagging inflation rates since 1990? In what most of us would call a "bad" economy, necessities are often the worst hit (and hurt the poor the most), yet those are exactly the items that the feds do not count.
There are litter box cleaners now, but of course you still have to dump the bag when it gets full and eventually change the remaining litter manually. Also, mine gets jammed a lot because I have a cat that never learned to cover. Still, they do save you a lot of scooping, and mine hasn't managed to attack my cats yet.
If there is still anyone left who does not agree with this, try asking a woman what the average ladies' rest room looks like. I refuse to reveal the answer here, as this is not/b/.
The people are getting poorer, and losing their homes. Where do you expect the money to come from? Districts keep increasing property taxes by 1-5% every year while people's incomes stay the same or drop.
If your government refuses to allow you to have life... you won't have life. If your government allows you to have life then you can have life. Therefore, all life comes from the government.
If your government refuses to allow you to have liberty... you won't have liberty. If your government allows you to have liberty then you can have liberty. Therefore, all liberty comes from the government.
These arguments explain why the focus of the Enlightenment was the idea of life, liberty, and property being natural rights that come from the creator. If you're atheist, I'm fine with you saying they come from the universe... regardless, they don't come from government. Government is needed to protect these rights.
Yes, but this is a rebuttal to the original argument, which is that (strong) government is needed to create wealth. Many people became wealthy in the 19th century USA with a relatively weak federal government. There is no such government to compare with in today's world, as they are all progressive to some extent or in anarchy like every progressive's pet straw man, Somalia.
What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?
Because people are self-serving? I know it hurts to realize this.
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government.
No, it comes from the exchange of goods and services between people. Governments are abstracts.
Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons,
So do industry standards.
that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers,
All those were 100% created by entrepreneurs when the technology was new before they became critical to the general welfare (and rightly so).
that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.
Preventing fraud and theft? Yeah, that's a function best left to government.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy.
Somehow, I suspect that the people who have no jobs and live on welfare payments are less dependent on government than the wealthy.
You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?
Does anyone know what "straw man argument" or "argumentum ad ignorantiam" mean? Hint: Somalia is a anarchy. And Google is your friend.
It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.
Ooh, another "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and a straw man. I'm a libertarian who earns less than what Obama calls "rich" every year. You're ignorant no longer. No, the wealthy don't "magically" conjure up the dollar. Usually, they have to spend a lot of their own time and money thinking of ideas (with their own bodies, that at least for the time being aren't owned by the government). If they have to take advantage of any government services along the way, it's because the progressives have already created those WITH THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE. So yours is a circular argument: we need to tax the successful so that we can have more services for the wealthy to use so we can tax them.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers go to the gym just like anyone else.
It's truly sad that some idiots modded up this abusive troll while other non-ignorant, insightful comments are left unrecognized.
People are understandably worried that if they were injured and unable to speak for themselves, they would be allowed to die so that their organs could be harvested. Unlikely, but possible.
You have to make sure you've cleared the opposite side of asteroids before you attempt the wrap-around.
That product is long, long out of patent protection and available in generic form. No single company should be able to constrict demand. Even if that is the case, then they fall under antitrust laws and a suit should be filed.
So how big was the bounty from the BSA?
It's bad business to violate the trust of your vendors and customers.
First of all, 98 and ME were very different versions and 98 was quite good. Second of all... see below.
And reversi. And object packager, gotta have object packager.
I'm still trying to prove I'm a bad enough dude to save the president.
No shadows, gradients, or transparency? So now it looks like Windows 3.1?
I love theoatmeal.com, but logic isn't really his strong suit. His meta-rebuttal still falls short, and his strip on "War in the name of atheism" doesn't address the fact that, indeed, state-enforced atheism was part of the policies of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They didn't actually go to war over atheism, but people were persecuted for opposing the policies. The results were the same: a bunch of dead or imprisoned people.
The fact that their voting numbers were far out of whack when compared to the overall population. Or did you think that Obama got 95% of the popular vote?
I also wonder how many people will vote against Romney because he is Mormon. Aren't we also supposed to be "tolerant" of religion? I do realize that you ultimately choose your own religious beliefs, but the fact is that the law makes no distinction.
Just give it a rest, folks: most people who oppose Obama do so because of his beliefs, his record, and his policies. The racists are an edge case.
Which time? They must have awarded the UN or arms of the UN six times! I gave up when they awarded Yasser Arafat.
You do realize that the federal government has been sandbagging inflation rates since 1990? In what most of us would call a "bad" economy, necessities are often the worst hit (and hurt the poor the most), yet those are exactly the items that the feds do not count.
There are litter box cleaners now, but of course you still have to dump the bag when it gets full and eventually change the remaining litter manually. Also, mine gets jammed a lot because I have a cat that never learned to cover. Still, they do save you a lot of scooping, and mine hasn't managed to attack my cats yet.
If there is still anyone left who does not agree with this, try asking a woman what the average ladies' rest room looks like. I refuse to reveal the answer here, as this is not /b/.
Well excuse me, but I had to get this information from online sources as I haven't been a cashier in 16 years.
The people are getting poorer, and losing their homes. Where do you expect the money to come from? Districts keep increasing property taxes by 1-5% every year while people's incomes stay the same or drop.
We've also proved that straw man arguments don't work for either side!
Please provide one example to prove your argument that libertarianism, that is "classical liberalism", leads to "corporate fascism".
If your government refuses to allow you to have life... you won't have life. If your government allows you to have life then you can have life. Therefore, all life comes from the government.
If your government refuses to allow you to have liberty... you won't have liberty. If your government allows you to have liberty then you can have liberty. Therefore, all liberty comes from the government.
These arguments explain why the focus of the Enlightenment was the idea of life, liberty, and property being natural rights that come from the creator. If you're atheist, I'm fine with you saying they come from the universe... regardless, they don't come from government. Government is needed to protect these rights.
Yes, but this is a rebuttal to the original argument, which is that (strong) government is needed to create wealth. Many people became wealthy in the 19th century USA with a relatively weak federal government. There is no such government to compare with in today's world, as they are all progressive to some extent or in anarchy like every progressive's pet straw man, Somalia.
Because people are self-serving? I know it hurts to realize this.
No, it comes from the exchange of goods and services between people. Governments are abstracts.
So do industry standards.
All those were 100% created by entrepreneurs when the technology was new before they became critical to the general welfare (and rightly so).
Preventing fraud and theft? Yeah, that's a function best left to government.
Somehow, I suspect that the people who have no jobs and live on welfare payments are less dependent on government than the wealthy.
Does anyone know what "straw man argument" or "argumentum ad ignorantiam" mean? Hint: Somalia is a anarchy. And Google is your friend.
Ooh, another "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and a straw man. I'm a libertarian who earns less than what Obama calls "rich" every year. You're ignorant no longer. No, the wealthy don't "magically" conjure up the dollar. Usually, they have to spend a lot of their own time and money thinking of ideas (with their own bodies, that at least for the time being aren't owned by the government). If they have to take advantage of any government services along the way, it's because the progressives have already created those WITH THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE. So yours is a circular argument: we need to tax the successful so that we can have more services for the wealthy to use so we can tax them.