You really need to find a mantra that you can state without actually lieing
Practice what you preach first, and others will follow.
They were basically only there to drive fleet mileage down and to have a low end offering to retain brand recognition.
Yes, and thus they were complete crap. GM put no effort into making a GOOD small car that people would want. Thus, Americans went with foreign cars that were better built and got better mileage...oh, and they didn't have to be small to do it. The Toyota Camry, a full-sized car, got better mileage than most of the GM econoboxes. More expensive? Of course, they were better built and gave their owners fewer headaches. You have to pay for quality.
This has more to do with unions and labor costs which was a big topic of the bailouts
Know what I find interesting about this argument? It's still alive. GM's losses amounted to about $39 billion/year. Their total annual labor expenditures, union and non-union combined, was about $22 billion. Even were you to bring back slavery, your theory still doesn't account for the extra $17 billion in losses. GM's primary problem was the fact that they have some 3200 dealerships across the US, and they compete against each other AND the foreign offerings. Toyota (I keep using them, but I drive a Chevy) has about 1300. They only have to compete against their competitors. BTW, they also build their cars with American labor paid approximately the same as the union employees at GM. The difference: they don't have to be forced to do it.
Ford (a US car maker) had actually turned a profit
How is that possible? According to your theory, if you have union employees, it's impossible to turn a profit. Did Ford get rid of their unions? I'm surprised that didn't make the papers.
Chrysler is took the rout of reorganization in order to get out from under a lot of the Union costs.
Chrysler....yeah, that's the union's fault. It was their fault they engaged in a completely disastrous merger with Daimler a few years back that resulted in a duplication of in-fighting management across the board and almost destroyed both companies. The Daimler-Chrysler merger is studied in business school as an example of why mergers (some 70% of which fail) are a terrible idea. Inside joke for years after the merger: "How do you spell Daimler-Chrysler?" "It's spelled Daimler, the Chrysler is silent".
Also, your theory fails to mention how the UAW took over management of employee benefits which reduced the manufacturers costs of doing so per employee from $15/hour to $4/hour.
It sounds to me that you have been drinking the Kool-aid and are now unable to see things for what they are or were.
Yuh-huh, Rush. Gotcha. Will you be reiterating this on your show yet again today? There might be a ditto-drone who hasn't heard it.
Of course not in person, I'm registered Independant and always have been. Neither side allows anyone who has ever considered not agreeing 100% with them within 5 miles of a place they're speaking. Of course it was chosen snippets....
The Republican debates, the Obama debates, their statements in the Congressional Record, the VP debates, their stumping speeches when available. And, yes, some mass media sources like the infamous Katie Couric interview...which, they readily admit was heavily edited...in Palin's favor. The stuff they released after was worse than what they aired. But, I also watched when they were interviewed on Fox News. But, you know, I still think he's a senile old man and Palin's a crazy redneck bumpkin that I wouldn't even want attending PTA meetings, let alone a heartbeat away...shudder...
So what? That's nothing more than cheap disk space.
A) I have a Netbook with 8G of flash drive space. It's neither cheap, nor spareable. B) No, it's not just drive space. When you launch a KDE app, for example, kdeinit, dcopserver, klauncher, kded will launch, too. So, now it's impacting my memory and performance.
So what? Using some toolkit, WM, etc. was not your choice but that of the developer.
Not just his, but the choice of the toolkit developer who decided that they didn't like the way the others did it, so they went out and made their own incompatible one. GTK, Qt...they all do exactly the same thing: put widgets on the screen. There's no reason to have so many aside from a false sense of "choice".
Or else they'll say "it works on Debian Stable -full stop" and be done with it.
And, have just excluded the Fedora crowd and Slackware crowd and Suse crowd. Together these crowds are barely, if at all, enough to justify porting to Linux. Now you want to subdivide further? And, why should anyone write to your platform again?
After all they don't say "it works on computers" so on and so on and so on" but it doesn't seem to be a problem with them.
None of that makes any sense.
So on one hand you see choice as being a bad thing and on the other you put yourself out of the "main circus" because of your very choice ability. Seems quite funny.
Well, then, I'll explain it to you: I don't want or need "choice" when it comes to toolkits. I don't want or need "choice" when it comes to desktop environments. What I want and need choice for is in a wealth of applications that don't require me to stand on my head, hold up a teacup with one hand, wish on a star and hope it all works out when I try to use it. I'm not a developer, I don't care that you didn't like that GTK puts this widget on the screen in this manner, so you went with Qt which puts it on the screen in another way. They both do exactly the same thing with exactly the same results to the person sitting in front of the screen. And, at the end of the day, that's the only person that matters in computing.
I really have no idea what one has to do with the other. What I DO believe, however, is that since having been diagnosed with ADHD 8 years ago and having medication prescribed to me, my life has improved by orders of magnitude. Some psychological disorders can't be cured by traditional talk therapy. Do you think with sufficient counseling Charles Manson or Harold Shipman could be reintegrated into society (yes, I know, Shipman's dead now)? They're not caused by mistakes of parenting or boring teachers. They can't be corrected by beatings, exciting classes or stern parenting. Just like the paraplegic can't get up out of their chair by wishing it to be so, those of us with ADHD CANNOT "just try harder" and have all of their focus issues resolved. To suggest otherwise is as abhorrently ignorant to us as it would be to the paraplegic. Having been on both sides, I can tell you: the amount of effort you put into your day to remain focused is a mere fraction of what I did prior to medication. YOU are the lazy one by comparison.
I will grant, however, that there are cases of misdiagnosis. That does not imply the actual problem doesn't exist or can be shrugged off by an ignorant public simply because it can't be "seen". The fact that we are seeing what appears to be a rise in diagnosis has more to do with better understanding of the symptoms and a better acceptance of the problem so it can be dealt with properly. Some teachers will mistakenly refer a student to counseling because they feel the child might be exhibiting symptoms. Isn't it better that happen, rather than torture and punish a student who really is trying harder than you can possibly imagine? That's why those of us with the disorder are happy about the technology in this article. It means fewer misdiagnoses and, at least to me, shows conclusively that there's a biological difference between ADHD and crazy, lazy or stupid. None of the latter show up on an EEG.
It could also be that the needs of society are becoming more and more complex and demanding each day thus exacerbating and exposing the limitations of those of us with ADHD. There was a time in America where you didn't need a lot of focus, you just had to keep the plow's handles on your shoulder and follow the ox's ass. That time doesn't exist anymore. Regardless of the reason, ADHD is real, and has been known to be a real disorder for a very long time. Ignorance has as well, but the cure for that is even easier.
It's fine if you want to use a drug to make life more bearable, just don't kid yourself by hiding behind the "it's an illness" banner.
Hear, hear! Similarly, just the other day I saw some lazy shit riding around in a motorized chair on wheels! Can you believe it? How lazy can you get? I told him to stop being a lazy shit and get up and walk like the rest of us. He whined about how he was a paraplegic and he couldn't walk and blah, blah, blah poor me. I told him he just wasn't trying hard enough and his parents should be ashamed of themselves for raising such a lazy, useless drain on society.
Funny, I was diagnosed with it a few years back and since having been put on medication most of the issues I faced in the day-to-day have been eliminated. Perhaps you were misdiagnosed, but that don't mean the problem don't exist.
But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT. They will tell you there is sufficient evidence that supports the models and predictions. Science is about collecting evidence, not establishing facts. Sometimes, new evidence comes along that completely contradicts previous evidence (rare), but more often than not it simply guides "tweaks" to the models to incorporate new data. This new data is of the latter type. It does not in any way invalidate the previous research and data, it simply sheds new light on it.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue.
No, it was made into a hot button issue, that was the problem. That's not the fault of the science, that's the fault of the ignorant media leading the even more ignorant populace.
But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness
Why? If the cynicism is justified, that's one thing, but you're comporting the effect the media has had on sensationalizing the issue with the science behind it. The two are intertwined, but distinct.
those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering
Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question.
Why? It's still private property. I should be able to give a blanket invite to anyone, and specific revocations of that invite.
I don't disagree entirely, but what about the instances where you're banning someone from an essential location? For example, where my inlaws live, there's no other supermarkets aside from the Walmart that's 45 minutes away. If that store decided for arbitrary reasons to ban them, they're SOL. Their weekly shopping trip is now a two-hour drive each way simply because they violated a rule that someone decided to make up on the spot. Since the person who took the photo violated no laws and was not charged with any crime, there is no basis for banning them from a semi-public location.
A sole propriatership should be able to do what it wants. It's the owner's private property, and they assume all risks and liabilities
With sole proprietorships, that's not always the case, typically they'll rent from another party. Who gets the final say there?
A corporation or LLC though should have abide by whatever we want them to; thats the price they pay for greatly reduced liabilities. I realize that's not how things are, but I'm talking about how I think things should be.
You and I are absolutely on the same page there. Frankly, I'm tired of corporations being essentially given the same rights as individuals. I'm a human being, I trump a piece of paper any day.:)
In any case, your specific objection isn't quite the same either; in one case you're ruling out a class of people
It doesn't have to be done that way. If you tell your security staff "this isn't a policy you'll see anywhere, but we don't like the darkies around here. If one comes in, kick them out for any reason you can find." Or, "I hate them gays. If you see two guys holding hands, make up an excuse and get rid of them." (I could see either happening in the aforementioned Walmart.:)
Shouldn't I be able to forbid someone from coming onto my property, for any reason I want? I mean, it is my property.
Not if you've opened your property up to be accessed freely by the general public. In those instances, you should have to have valid cause. Should malls be allowed to exclude people due to the color of their skin? I agree with your obvious concern that the parent included "home" and "store" in the same sentence. Private individuals should have to offer no reason to keep people off their property.
>> I don't have a citation, but I do find the comment believable.
So, anything's true as long as it's believable?
>> 2) "without dependents" - That's probably a big portion of the 40%. People who make 10k/year
and have 4 children.
According to the IRS, the percentage of households earning under $10k is 8.64. Significantly less than 40%, regardless of the number of dependents. You need to be making less than $35k/year in order to fall into the bottom 40% of income earners....and at those levels, they're still paying taxes.
>> I bet somebody could whip out a calculator and a W-2 form and figure out what income level corresponds to 0 taxes.
According to another poster, you're looking at around $15k/year. Seeing as even that level isn't a living wage, I personally don't have a problem not only giving them their tax burden back, but additional credits as well.
It comes right after cherry-picking parts of a comment that seemingly support your case and completely ignoring the ones that don't. Such as the part where he points out that he does not believe Rangel intentionally "cheated" on his taxes since he's the one who brought it out. The comparison was made that Rangel is "evil" because of his actions (or inactions), but evil is a choice. Rangel made a mistake. There's a difference. In a "who is more evil" discussion, which this one is, ultimately...bringing out the evil committed by the opposing side is perfectly acceptable.
Beyond that, it's unrealistic to assume that someone like Rangel even DOES his own taxes. I don't make anywhere near as much as he does and even *I* don't do my own taxes. I get the advice of a tax professional, and if that professional gives me wrong advice, it's difficult for me to know that. All of the recent tax issues faced by public officials have been minor, MINOR, and easily attributable to ignorance rather than malice...as opposed to the actions of those on the other side who are criticizing these mistakes.
Prove it. Oh, wait, you can't, you don't have data to back up your claim. Since the article doesn't mention the smoking habits of the parents, it's possible your claim has been debunked.
Not saying you don't make a plausible argument, but that science sometimes needs to investigate the "obvious" to be sure the "obvious" is right.
And, BTW, the Sun isn't in the sky only during daylight hours. It's always in the sky, it's only visible by those experiencing daylight hours. Science tackled that one a long time ago to disprove the theory that the Sun went underground to rest or hide or one of the myriad other tasks ancient "obvious" myths claimed.:)
Further...how many have daily useful purposes? I have a bunch of apps I've downloaded that I use regularly, but not every day...Shazam (for tagging music, might use it once every week or so), Around Here (for finding a place to eat, only really use it when I'm out of town). Worldview (for viewing webcams, I only use it when the snow's bad and I want to see what my route home is like). As you point out, most free apps are either trials or gimmicks that won't see long term usage.
Oh, good, you've contributed in a positive way to the conversation. This whole issue had been a mire of point-counterpoint until you stepped in and made it clear for all of us. Where would we be without you and your spectacular mind?
Nope, it's what they're saying. When atheists complain about christian institutions getting funding in direct violation of the founding tenets of our country, the christians pop up and say they, and other religious groups, are being oppressed. But, when you acknowledge those other groups, the christians get pissed because you've now diminished them because they're not getting 100% of the spotlight.
Pardon me, but I have a secular dislike of killing innocent human beings.
Then, did you vote for the people who wanted to continue the war in Iraq or against? Since they're usually pro-"life", I'm assuming you must've.
I'm not sure if that changes anything though. Why should my taxes pay to kill the innocent?
That's your opinion. It's not even the one of the catholic church, which believes that the soul doesn't enter the fetus until the quickening. Or at least it did..then it didn't, then it did, then it didn't...And, seeing as that religion is based on another religion that doesn't have a particular vehemence against abortion, if your opinion's based on religion how do you determine which variation of the "truth" to base your belief on? And, I don't believe they're an innocent. It's a lump of cells until the brain kicks in. I'm not going to keep funds from people who need it for medical treatment.
It's one thing to allow this killing. Actually paying for it is simply outrageous.
The organizations do other things, too. Console your conscience with knowing that you're funding things like contraceptives and education that will prevent abortions from being necessary in the first place.
I don't want to pay for religious institutions because they promote continuing ignorance and superstition which is drawing the world into ever escalating conflicts that result in the murder of millions, so why should I? Because I grok that compromise is needed. Since religion doesn't allow compromise, I can see how that could be a problem for you. You would then be able to understand that your statement inflicts your particular religious views on those who don't believe in them. Perhaps if your religion would stop fighting so hard against teaching kids good contraceptive methods, there wouldn't be as much of a need for non-medically necessary abortions.
But, regardless of all of that, the US is a secular nation, not a religious one and so religious opinions don't have play in setting policy or allocating funding. If you'd prefer to live in a country like that, there's plenty of them in the Middle East..
Slashdot Mirror
You really need to find a mantra that you can state without actually lieing
Practice what you preach first, and others will follow.
They were basically only there to drive fleet mileage down and to have a low end offering to retain brand recognition.
Yes, and thus they were complete crap. GM put no effort into making a GOOD small car that people would want. Thus, Americans went with foreign cars that were better built and got better mileage...oh, and they didn't have to be small to do it. The Toyota Camry, a full-sized car, got better mileage than most of the GM econoboxes. More expensive? Of course, they were better built and gave their owners fewer headaches. You have to pay for quality.
This has more to do with unions and labor costs which was a big topic of the bailouts
Know what I find interesting about this argument? It's still alive. GM's losses amounted to about $39 billion/year. Their total annual labor expenditures, union and non-union combined, was about $22 billion. Even were you to bring back slavery, your theory still doesn't account for the extra $17 billion in losses. GM's primary problem was the fact that they have some 3200 dealerships across the US, and they compete against each other AND the foreign offerings. Toyota (I keep using them, but I drive a Chevy) has about 1300. They only have to compete against their competitors. BTW, they also build their cars with American labor paid approximately the same as the union employees at GM. The difference: they don't have to be forced to do it.
Ford (a US car maker) had actually turned a profit
How is that possible? According to your theory, if you have union employees, it's impossible to turn a profit. Did Ford get rid of their unions? I'm surprised that didn't make the papers.
Chrysler is took the rout of reorganization in order to get out from under a lot of the Union costs.
Chrysler....yeah, that's the union's fault. It was their fault they engaged in a completely disastrous merger with Daimler a few years back that resulted in a duplication of in-fighting management across the board and almost destroyed both companies. The Daimler-Chrysler merger is studied in business school as an example of why mergers (some 70% of which fail) are a terrible idea. Inside joke for years after the merger: "How do you spell Daimler-Chrysler?" "It's spelled Daimler, the Chrysler is silent".
Also, your theory fails to mention how the UAW took over management of employee benefits which reduced the manufacturers costs of doing so per employee from $15/hour to $4/hour.
It sounds to me that you have been drinking the Kool-aid and are now unable to see things for what they are or were.
Yuh-huh, Rush. Gotcha. Will you be reiterating this on your show yet again today? There might be a ditto-drone who hasn't heard it.
Of course not in person, I'm registered Independant and always have been. Neither side allows anyone who has ever considered not agreeing 100% with them within 5 miles of a place they're speaking. Of course it was chosen snippets....
The Republican debates, the Obama debates, their statements in the Congressional Record, the VP debates, their stumping speeches when available. And, yes, some mass media sources like the infamous Katie Couric interview...which, they readily admit was heavily edited...in Palin's favor. The stuff they released after was worse than what they aired. But, I also watched when they were interviewed on Fox News. But, you know, I still think he's a senile old man and Palin's a crazy redneck bumpkin that I wouldn't even want attending PTA meetings, let alone a heartbeat away...shudder...
I got it from listening to them speak.
So what? That's nothing more than cheap disk space.
A) I have a Netbook with 8G of flash drive space. It's neither cheap, nor spareable. B) No, it's not just drive space. When you launch a KDE app, for example, kdeinit, dcopserver, klauncher, kded will launch, too. So, now it's impacting my memory and performance.
So what? Using some toolkit, WM, etc. was not your choice but that of the developer.
Not just his, but the choice of the toolkit developer who decided that they didn't like the way the others did it, so they went out and made their own incompatible one. GTK, Qt...they all do exactly the same thing: put widgets on the screen. There's no reason to have so many aside from a false sense of "choice".
Or else they'll say "it works on Debian Stable -full stop" and be done with it.
And, have just excluded the Fedora crowd and Slackware crowd and Suse crowd. Together these crowds are barely, if at all, enough to justify porting to Linux. Now you want to subdivide further? And, why should anyone write to your platform again?
After all they don't say "it works on computers" so on and so on and so on" but it doesn't seem to be a problem with them.
None of that makes any sense.
So on one hand you see choice as being a bad thing and on the other you put yourself out of the "main circus" because of your very choice ability. Seems quite funny.
Well, then, I'll explain it to you: I don't want or need "choice" when it comes to toolkits. I don't want or need "choice" when it comes to desktop environments. What I want and need choice for is in a wealth of applications that don't require me to stand on my head, hold up a teacup with one hand, wish on a star and hope it all works out when I try to use it. I'm not a developer, I don't care that you didn't like that GTK puts this widget on the screen in this manner, so you went with Qt which puts it on the screen in another way. They both do exactly the same thing with exactly the same results to the person sitting in front of the screen. And, at the end of the day, that's the only person that matters in computing.
I really have no idea what one has to do with the other. What I DO believe, however, is that since having been diagnosed with ADHD 8 years ago and having medication prescribed to me, my life has improved by orders of magnitude. Some psychological disorders can't be cured by traditional talk therapy. Do you think with sufficient counseling Charles Manson or Harold Shipman could be reintegrated into society (yes, I know, Shipman's dead now)? They're not caused by mistakes of parenting or boring teachers. They can't be corrected by beatings, exciting classes or stern parenting. Just like the paraplegic can't get up out of their chair by wishing it to be so, those of us with ADHD CANNOT "just try harder" and have all of their focus issues resolved. To suggest otherwise is as abhorrently ignorant to us as it would be to the paraplegic. Having been on both sides, I can tell you: the amount of effort you put into your day to remain focused is a mere fraction of what I did prior to medication. YOU are the lazy one by comparison.
I will grant, however, that there are cases of misdiagnosis. That does not imply the actual problem doesn't exist or can be shrugged off by an ignorant public simply because it can't be "seen". The fact that we are seeing what appears to be a rise in diagnosis has more to do with better understanding of the symptoms and a better acceptance of the problem so it can be dealt with properly. Some teachers will mistakenly refer a student to counseling because they feel the child might be exhibiting symptoms. Isn't it better that happen, rather than torture and punish a student who really is trying harder than you can possibly imagine? That's why those of us with the disorder are happy about the technology in this article. It means fewer misdiagnoses and, at least to me, shows conclusively that there's a biological difference between ADHD and crazy, lazy or stupid. None of the latter show up on an EEG.
It could also be that the needs of society are becoming more and more complex and demanding each day thus exacerbating and exposing the limitations of those of us with ADHD. There was a time in America where you didn't need a lot of focus, you just had to keep the plow's handles on your shoulder and follow the ox's ass. That time doesn't exist anymore. Regardless of the reason, ADHD is real, and has been known to be a real disorder for a very long time. Ignorance has as well, but the cure for that is even easier.
It's fine if you want to use a drug to make life more bearable, just don't kid yourself by hiding behind the "it's an illness" banner.
Hear, hear! Similarly, just the other day I saw some lazy shit riding around in a motorized chair on wheels! Can you believe it? How lazy can you get? I told him to stop being a lazy shit and get up and walk like the rest of us. He whined about how he was a paraplegic and he couldn't walk and blah, blah, blah poor me. I told him he just wasn't trying hard enough and his parents should be ashamed of themselves for raising such a lazy, useless drain on society.
Funny, I was diagnosed with it a few years back and since having been put on medication most of the issues I faced in the day-to-day have been eliminated. Perhaps you were misdiagnosed, but that don't mean the problem don't exist.
But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT. They will tell you there is sufficient evidence that supports the models and predictions. Science is about collecting evidence, not establishing facts. Sometimes, new evidence comes along that completely contradicts previous evidence (rare), but more often than not it simply guides "tweaks" to the models to incorporate new data. This new data is of the latter type. It does not in any way invalidate the previous research and data, it simply sheds new light on it.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue.
No, it was made into a hot button issue, that was the problem. That's not the fault of the science, that's the fault of the ignorant media leading the even more ignorant populace.
But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness
Why? If the cynicism is justified, that's one thing, but you're comporting the effect the media has had on sensationalizing the issue with the science behind it. The two are intertwined, but distinct.
those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering
Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question.
As if that supermarker is the only place to get food.
:)
In that area, yes, it is. Well, there are gas stations, I guess...
The fact is the store wouldn't arbitrarly ban them anyway
I'm sure the person in the article thought the same way.
have groceries delivered
There are places that do that?
why would you want to shop at a store that indicates they don't want your business?
Generally, I need food to survive, so that would have to take precedence over whether I'm liked or not.
Why? It's still private property. I should be able to give a blanket invite to anyone, and specific revocations of that invite.
:)
:)
I don't disagree entirely, but what about the instances where you're banning someone from an essential location? For example, where my inlaws live, there's no other supermarkets aside from the Walmart that's 45 minutes away. If that store decided for arbitrary reasons to ban them, they're SOL. Their weekly shopping trip is now a two-hour drive each way simply because they violated a rule that someone decided to make up on the spot. Since the person who took the photo violated no laws and was not charged with any crime, there is no basis for banning them from a semi-public location.
A sole propriatership should be able to do what it wants. It's the owner's private property, and they assume all risks and liabilities
With sole proprietorships, that's not always the case, typically they'll rent from another party. Who gets the final say there?
A corporation or LLC though should have abide by whatever we want them to; thats the price they pay for greatly reduced liabilities. I realize that's not how things are, but I'm talking about how I think things should be.
You and I are absolutely on the same page there. Frankly, I'm tired of corporations being essentially given the same rights as individuals. I'm a human being, I trump a piece of paper any day.
In any case, your specific objection isn't quite the same either; in one case you're ruling out a class of people
It doesn't have to be done that way. If you tell your security staff "this isn't a policy you'll see anywhere, but we don't like the darkies around here. If one comes in, kick them out for any reason you can find." Or, "I hate them gays. If you see two guys holding hands, make up an excuse and get rid of them." (I could see either happening in the aforementioned Walmart.
Shouldn't I be able to forbid someone from coming onto my property, for any reason I want? I mean, it is my property.
Not if you've opened your property up to be accessed freely by the general public. In those instances, you should have to have valid cause. Should malls be allowed to exclude people due to the color of their skin? I agree with your obvious concern that the parent included "home" and "store" in the same sentence. Private individuals should have to offer no reason to keep people off their property.
>> I don't have a citation, but I do find the comment believable.
So, anything's true as long as it's believable?
>> 2) "without dependents" - That's probably a big portion of the 40%. People who make 10k/year and have 4 children.
According to the IRS, the percentage of households earning under $10k is 8.64. Significantly less than 40%, regardless of the number of dependents. You need to be making less than $35k/year in order to fall into the bottom 40% of income earners....and at those levels, they're still paying taxes.
>> I bet somebody could whip out a calculator and a W-2 form and figure out what income level corresponds to 0 taxes.
According to another poster, you're looking at around $15k/year. Seeing as even that level isn't a living wage, I personally don't have a problem not only giving them their tax burden back, but additional credits as well.
About five minutes after morons like you come to grips with the fact that minor mistakes are not the same thing as cheating on your taxes.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Seriously, I support it 100%
Brilliant!
It comes right after cherry-picking parts of a comment that seemingly support your case and completely ignoring the ones that don't. Such as the part where he points out that he does not believe Rangel intentionally "cheated" on his taxes since he's the one who brought it out. The comparison was made that Rangel is "evil" because of his actions (or inactions), but evil is a choice. Rangel made a mistake. There's a difference. In a "who is more evil" discussion, which this one is, ultimately...bringing out the evil committed by the opposing side is perfectly acceptable.
Beyond that, it's unrealistic to assume that someone like Rangel even DOES his own taxes. I don't make anywhere near as much as he does and even *I* don't do my own taxes. I get the advice of a tax professional, and if that professional gives me wrong advice, it's difficult for me to know that. All of the recent tax issues faced by public officials have been minor, MINOR, and easily attributable to ignorance rather than malice...as opposed to the actions of those on the other side who are criticizing these mistakes.
Yes it does, and you're a hypocrite if you disagree with me! :)
Prove it. Oh, wait, you can't, you don't have data to back up your claim. Since the article doesn't mention the smoking habits of the parents, it's possible your claim has been debunked.
:)
Not saying you don't make a plausible argument, but that science sometimes needs to investigate the "obvious" to be sure the "obvious" is right.
And, BTW, the Sun isn't in the sky only during daylight hours. It's always in the sky, it's only visible by those experiencing daylight hours. Science tackled that one a long time ago to disprove the theory that the Sun went underground to rest or hide or one of the myriad other tasks ancient "obvious" myths claimed.
In the time it took you to write this article and submit it to Slashdot, you could've uninstalled the extension a dozen times.
Further...how many have daily useful purposes? I have a bunch of apps I've downloaded that I use regularly, but not every day...Shazam (for tagging music, might use it once every week or so), Around Here (for finding a place to eat, only really use it when I'm out of town). Worldview (for viewing webcams, I only use it when the snow's bad and I want to see what my route home is like). As you point out, most free apps are either trials or gimmicks that won't see long term usage.
Oh, good, you've contributed in a positive way to the conversation. This whole issue had been a mire of point-counterpoint until you stepped in and made it clear for all of us. Where would we be without you and your spectacular mind?
The popular vote does count, you just don't understand the rules. Might I suggest retaking your high school civics class again?
Nope, it's what they're saying. When atheists complain about christian institutions getting funding in direct violation of the founding tenets of our country, the christians pop up and say they, and other religious groups, are being oppressed. But, when you acknowledge those other groups, the christians get pissed because you've now diminished them because they're not getting 100% of the spotlight.
Pardon me, but I have a secular dislike of killing innocent human beings.
Then, did you vote for the people who wanted to continue the war in Iraq or against? Since they're usually pro-"life", I'm assuming you must've.
I'm not sure if that changes anything though. Why should my taxes pay to kill the innocent?
That's your opinion. It's not even the one of the catholic church, which believes that the soul doesn't enter the fetus until the quickening. Or at least it did..then it didn't, then it did, then it didn't...And, seeing as that religion is based on another religion that doesn't have a particular vehemence against abortion, if your opinion's based on religion how do you determine which variation of the "truth" to base your belief on? And, I don't believe they're an innocent. It's a lump of cells until the brain kicks in. I'm not going to keep funds from people who need it for medical treatment.
It's one thing to allow this killing. Actually paying for it is simply outrageous.
The organizations do other things, too. Console your conscience with knowing that you're funding things like contraceptives and education that will prevent abortions from being necessary in the first place.
I don't want to pay for religious institutions because they promote continuing ignorance and superstition which is drawing the world into ever escalating conflicts that result in the murder of millions, so why should I? Because I grok that compromise is needed. Since religion doesn't allow compromise, I can see how that could be a problem for you. You would then be able to understand that your statement inflicts your particular religious views on those who don't believe in them. Perhaps if your religion would stop fighting so hard against teaching kids good contraceptive methods, there wouldn't be as much of a need for non-medically necessary abortions.
But, regardless of all of that, the US is a secular nation, not a religious one and so religious opinions don't have play in setting policy or allocating funding. If you'd prefer to live in a country like that, there's plenty of them in the Middle East..