No, we hate being told by idiots like you that you think you know what we hate. As a white male who was raised by a strong single mom, and married a double MBA director, and raised a strong daughter...fuck you.
"Unfortunately Republican partisanship is so strong that they still coalesced around Trump. "
I'd argue that they coalesced around anybody but HRC, and the realization that her SCOTUS appointments would change things for the remainder of our lifetime. That's the one reason I didn't cross the aisle, but did vote 3rd party for the first time in forty years.
I voted 3rd party for the first time in 40 years of voting. After watching the Libertarian debates, I couldn't go that way, even though I share many of their beliefs. I certainly wasn't going for HRC, and Trump had just said too much stupid shit that I couldn't pick him. So, after a little reading, and knowing that it really didn't matter, I went with Evan McMullin. I'd honestly like to see another party come up from the fringes.
Nobody campaigned to win the popular vote, and if there was a popular vote election, the results would not have been the same. Both sides clearly know the rules...nobody moved their cheese during the race. You don't get to hold a marathon competition, and claim that the person who led for 23 miles won the 23 mile race, when they were overtaken at the end...it was a 24.2 mile race, period.
She didn't win anything. There is no popular vote election. If there was, they both would have ran different campaigns, spending time and money quite differently. You don't hold a marathon race, and claim that the runner who led the first mile won the mile race.
Then you clearly weren't paying attention. There were many criticisms of Obama that were fingered as racism. Now some of those criticisms were simply stupid, but Stupidity != Racism.
I've heard about this before, and honestly don't know the real history. But my question is, did they really partner, or were they intimidated into going along. Suppose I should just have my first cup of java and google.
Ah, well. I wouldn't expect a contractor to get educational benefits. We typically offer them only with an agreement that the employee has to stay on at least a year after completion of the training...gotta get something out of the investment.
Confirmation on being a parent who raised a great kid, who turned into a great adult, who I couldn't be prouder of. So, if that makes me a prick, then yes, I'm a prick.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, and wasn't in any way insinuating that charity is the solution for all of our issues. It was simply the difference that the GP was questioning.
I'd rather have my taxes go to pay someone to watch soaps on TV than to some brain-dead defense contractor who made no viable product and wound up folding (but before the bankruptcy, all the execs got their bonuses), but yet charged the US taxpayers billions.
You're welcome for all of the viable products I've made and supported to protect your happy ass, and allow you to spout off whatever bullshit comes into that empty skull.
You need to dial back your assumptions. The vast majority of people wanting lower taxes are not against taxation. But, what you'll hear about in the press are the fringe anarchists, because that generates eyeballs for them. The problem for the majority is we're against bureaucratic wastefulness, and pork projects, and the impact that taxation is having on small business hiring. I'm all for taxes to provide infrastructure, defense, mail, and a safety net (I have family members who rely on it). That said, the government shouldn't be taking more than it needs to provide those basic services. I think where many of us differ is in what should be done by government and what should be left to private industry, charity, etc...you see this going on in the discussion about public education right now. How about NASA...now that they kickstarted it, how much should be left to private industry?
Your job as a parent is to raise a self sufficient, productive adult, not to become their BFF...that will come when they've reached workforce age, and realize that the effort you put into them gave them the kickstart they really needed. And, if you're allowing your kids to do that whole fishnet thing, well, "don't make me stop this car..."
It's unfortunate that there's no required training to be a parent.
If a group someone if affiliated with, be it an employer, church, coven, or other group gives you a box of cookies, one will be grateful. Similar if the group paid bills for someone if they were not employed. However, the government doing these things is looked down upon.
When those groups give, it's charity. When the government does it, it's because they forcibly took that money from other people. And, having worked around the government for forty years, seeing the inefficiency, much of those funds are wasted on bureaucracy.
I'm fine with the government doing so to a certain extent, but only to provide a basic safety net for those truly in need. I think where many people differ on this is who qualifies, and how much should they get. I know from experience with my mother (living on ~$1k/mo social security...pre-tax), that many couldn't make it on what we give them now w/o additional help from family, friends, charity, etc.
Again, it's a simple matter to pay for employee training, with the stipulation that the employee has to pay back the money if they quit too soon (typically 1-2 years after completion). So, that mitigates the risk of investing in our employees education. And, as I stated earlier, I can name at least seven Fortune 500 companies that my wife and I have worked for that operate this way.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we hate being told by idiots like you that you think you know what we hate. As a white male who was raised by a strong single mom, and married a double MBA director, and raised a strong daughter...fuck you.
"Unfortunately Republican partisanship is so strong that they still coalesced around Trump. "
I'd argue that they coalesced around anybody but HRC, and the realization that her SCOTUS appointments would change things for the remainder of our lifetime. That's the one reason I didn't cross the aisle, but did vote 3rd party for the first time in forty years.
Wow, you just proved his point.
I voted 3rd party for the first time in 40 years of voting. After watching the Libertarian debates, I couldn't go that way, even though I share many of their beliefs. I certainly wasn't going for HRC, and Trump had just said too much stupid shit that I couldn't pick him. So, after a little reading, and knowing that it really didn't matter, I went with Evan McMullin. I'd honestly like to see another party come up from the fringes.
From across the aisle, I give you a +1 Insightful.
Nobody campaigned to win the popular vote, and if there was a popular vote election, the results would not have been the same. Both sides clearly know the rules...nobody moved their cheese during the race. You don't get to hold a marathon competition, and claim that the person who led for 23 miles won the 23 mile race, when they were overtaken at the end...it was a 24.2 mile race, period.
"The weather in Florida is just as good as California and no earthquakes. "
Between 1900-2007, Florida had suffered $60B (in 2005 dollars) worth of hurricane damage. Discuss.
http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/P...
She did win the popular vote though.
She didn't win anything. There is no popular vote election. If there was, they both would have ran different campaigns, spending time and money quite differently. You don't hold a marathon race, and claim that the runner who led the first mile won the mile race.
And what president hasn't been continuously criticized? It comes with the office.
Then you clearly weren't paying attention. There were many criticisms of Obama that were fingered as racism. Now some of those criticisms were simply stupid, but Stupidity != Racism.
I've heard about this before, and honestly don't know the real history. But my question is, did they really partner, or were they intimidated into going along. Suppose I should just have my first cup of java and google.
Clearly, you haven't paid any attention to defense stocks. The link here is to a five year chart showing four major defense contractors.
https://finance.yahoo.com/char...
Seriously, you're going to reference CNN on hyperbole? I wish I had mod points to mark your post Funny.
Seven seasons is "failed"? How do you judge success?
I'm not a fan of his, or the show, but get a clue.
Ah, well. I wouldn't expect a contractor to get educational benefits. We typically offer them only with an agreement that the employee has to stay on at least a year after completion of the training...gotta get something out of the investment.
So, confirmation on being a prick.
Confirmation on being a parent who raised a great kid, who turned into a great adult, who I couldn't be prouder of. So, if that makes me a prick, then yes, I'm a prick.
If you are alive today, you haven't done shit to protect the US.
You are truly clueless.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, and wasn't in any way insinuating that charity is the solution for all of our issues. It was simply the difference that the GP was questioning.
I'd rather have my taxes go to pay someone to watch soaps on TV than to some brain-dead defense contractor who made no viable product and wound up folding (but before the bankruptcy, all the execs got their bonuses), but yet charged the US taxpayers billions.
You're welcome for all of the viable products I've made and supported to protect your happy ass, and allow you to spout off whatever bullshit comes into that empty skull.
People dont just want handouts. They want to be able to prosper and live with dignity, do meaningful work, and contribute to their country.
I assure you there's a LOT of people who do want handouts and are quite happy to sit on the sofa all day drinking beer.
I say let them then.
I say then you, and anyone who agrees with you, should pay the taxes to support them.
You make it sound as if that's the only way to tax. There will be commerce. There will be taxes. There just won't be the income tax as we know it.
You need to dial back your assumptions. The vast majority of people wanting lower taxes are not against taxation. But, what you'll hear about in the press are the fringe anarchists, because that generates eyeballs for them. The problem for the majority is we're against bureaucratic wastefulness, and pork projects, and the impact that taxation is having on small business hiring. I'm all for taxes to provide infrastructure, defense, mail, and a safety net (I have family members who rely on it). That said, the government shouldn't be taking more than it needs to provide those basic services. I think where many of us differ is in what should be done by government and what should be left to private industry, charity, etc...you see this going on in the discussion about public education right now. How about NASA...now that they kickstarted it, how much should be left to private industry?
"Are you one of those prickish parents who ... "
Your job as a parent is to raise a self sufficient, productive adult, not to become their BFF...that will come when they've reached workforce age, and realize that the effort you put into them gave them the kickstart they really needed. And, if you're allowing your kids to do that whole fishnet thing, well, "don't make me stop this car..."
It's unfortunate that there's no required training to be a parent.
If a group someone if affiliated with, be it an employer, church, coven, or other group gives you a box of cookies, one will be grateful. Similar if the group paid bills for someone if they were not employed. However, the government doing these things is looked down upon.
When those groups give, it's charity. When the government does it, it's because they forcibly took that money from other people. And, having worked around the government for forty years, seeing the inefficiency, much of those funds are wasted on bureaucracy.
I'm fine with the government doing so to a certain extent, but only to provide a basic safety net for those truly in need. I think where many people differ on this is who qualifies, and how much should they get. I know from experience with my mother (living on ~$1k/mo social security...pre-tax), that many couldn't make it on what we give them now w/o additional help from family, friends, charity, etc.
Again, it's a simple matter to pay for employee training, with the stipulation that the employee has to pay back the money if they quit too soon (typically 1-2 years after completion). So, that mitigates the risk of investing in our employees education. And, as I stated earlier, I can name at least seven Fortune 500 companies that my wife and I have worked for that operate this way.