Don't generalise. It destroys your argument. There is still an imbalance in power between an employer and employee, so unions are still terribly important. If one looks at countries with functioning unions (Germany, for example), you'd see they work and work well. They're not going to magically fix shitty business cultures, but they give the employees more of a chance to fix them.
They didn't enforce the policy as the current administration is doing. That's the difference. It would help your position if you learned what it is before trying to use it in a discussion.
You'd have a point if this was the first country looking to create a national health service. As it isn't, there are plenty of examples. It's not something unknown or unexplainable - it's both known and explained in great depth.
You really don't seem to understand what the EU is or does. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.
Yes, the UK bankrupted itself fighting Nazis - many countries did. The money from the EU to other countries is paid by all members, and all receive benefits from it. Reducing it to a simple "they're spending our money!" shows a staggering ingorance of what's actually happening.
And the ECB is not the EU.
You're not really helping dispel the notion that leavers aren't well informed.
Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom was frequently called the "sick man of Europe", first by foreign commentators, and later at home by critics of the third Wilson/Callaghan ministry, because of industrial strife and poor economic performance compared to other European countries.
It wasn't doing fine. It was doing terribly, actually. Membership of the EEC (and later EU) helped massively. That's why Britain repeatedly tried to join.
If we accept that education is the solution, how do we stem the tide of deaths in the mean-time as we wait for the education to take hold? Or do we not, and just accept that scores of people will die needless deaths?
You don't seem to be aware of the massive benefits to business (and therefor the government via taxes) from being in the EU. It's not just a matter of working out if payments to the EU are greater than payments from the EU. And that doesn't even factor in the number of EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS, or the EU immigrants who are paying more taxes than they get from the government, etc. etc. etc.
You're proving their point - people who don't understand the EU being angry about the EU.
And in the mean-time just accept the unnecessary deaths?
If free speech is important, you are admitting it has power. If something has power the thought of constraining it isn't so bizarre, is it? Society has realised that everythign which can be dangerous to society needs to be limited in some fashion.
Nationalised healthcare is cheaper than the US's current system. The US currently spends more per capita on healthcare than any country with nationalised healthcare, without all the benefits. If a person can go to college and get a job which will pay more taxes over their working life than if they did go to college, and if that increase in taxes is more than the cost of tuition, it will pay for itself.
It's not expensive. It's just cutting out lots of companies represented by powerful lobbyists, hence the reluctance of government to do anything about it.
It's a lot easier to keep equipment like this working when it's not moving around on sand, travel times are reduced massively, and they have lots of access to fresh, cold water.
There are plenty of online shops in the EU. Due to regulation they haven't all been gobbled up and become one massive shop.
The law in question isn't weird. You can push your Amazon button and get a substitute product. One you didn't explicitly agree to order. You weren't informed about what this replacement is, and can't compare prices as it's a mystery product. How is that weird?
The usual definition - someone seeking to coerce people into political change through the use or threat of violence. Criminals aren't terrorists by default, even if they're really scary to you.
You are showing your ignorance again - every scientist's conclusions are suspect by default, as that's part of the scientific method, and why peer review exists and is used. That lets us weed out compromised research from honest research, and gives you all the technology and medicine your life depends on.
The problem is politicians crippling the government because their pet projects don't get funding, not that the government spends money on scientific research.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't generalise. It destroys your argument. There is still an imbalance in power between an employer and employee, so unions are still terribly important. If one looks at countries with functioning unions (Germany, for example), you'd see they work and work well. They're not going to magically fix shitty business cultures, but they give the employees more of a chance to fix them.
If a company is large enough it can prevent people from knowing about the alternatives.
They didn't enforce the policy as the current administration is doing. That's the difference. It would help your position if you learned what it is before trying to use it in a discussion.
You'd have a point if this was the first country looking to create a national health service. As it isn't, there are plenty of examples. It's not something unknown or unexplainable - it's both known and explained in great depth.
You really don't seem to understand what the EU is or does. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.
Yes, the UK bankrupted itself fighting Nazis - many countries did. The money from the EU to other countries is paid by all members, and all receive benefits from it. Reducing it to a simple "they're spending our money!" shows a staggering ingorance of what's actually happening.
And the ECB is not the EU.
You're not really helping dispel the notion that leavers aren't well informed.
Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom was frequently called the "sick man of Europe", first by foreign commentators, and later at home by critics of the third Wilson/Callaghan ministry, because of industrial strife and poor economic performance compared to other European countries.
It wasn't doing fine. It was doing terribly, actually. Membership of the EEC (and later EU) helped massively. That's why Britain repeatedly tried to join.
If we accept that education is the solution, how do we stem the tide of deaths in the mean-time as we wait for the education to take hold? Or do we not, and just accept that scores of people will die needless deaths?
You don't seem to be aware of the massive benefits to business (and therefor the government via taxes) from being in the EU. It's not just a matter of working out if payments to the EU are greater than payments from the EU. And that doesn't even factor in the number of EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS, or the EU immigrants who are paying more taxes than they get from the government, etc. etc. etc.
You're proving their point - people who don't understand the EU being angry about the EU.
And you are incapable of forming an argument. Now what?
And in the mean-time just accept the unnecessary deaths?
If free speech is important, you are admitting it has power. If something has power the thought of constraining it isn't so bizarre, is it? Society has realised that everythign which can be dangerous to society needs to be limited in some fashion.
That this is moderated as "Troll" speaks volumes about slashdot. Oh my how the times have changed.
Read the other charges... You're embarrassing yourself somewhat.
There is a stark difference between performing opposition research by using a domestic company and by using a foreign government.
And if you never lie to the FBI, they'll never charge you with lying to them. Weird, huh?
You are entirely incorrect. Well done.
Nationalised healthcare is cheaper than the US's current system. The US currently spends more per capita on healthcare than any country with nationalised healthcare, without all the benefits. If a person can go to college and get a job which will pay more taxes over their working life than if they did go to college, and if that increase in taxes is more than the cost of tuition, it will pay for itself.
It's not expensive. It's just cutting out lots of companies represented by powerful lobbyists, hence the reluctance of government to do anything about it.
Don't confuse having a wall with controlling borders. The former has vanishingly little to do with the latter.
It's a lot easier to keep equipment like this working when it's not moving around on sand, travel times are reduced massively, and they have lots of access to fresh, cold water.
There are plenty of online shops in the EU. Due to regulation they haven't all been gobbled up and become one massive shop.
The law in question isn't weird. You can push your Amazon button and get a substitute product. One you didn't explicitly agree to order. You weren't informed about what this replacement is, and can't compare prices as it's a mystery product. How is that weird?
The usual definition - someone seeking to coerce people into political change through the use or threat of violence. Criminals aren't terrorists by default, even if they're really scary to you.
You are showing your ignorance again - every scientist's conclusions are suspect by default, as that's part of the scientific method, and why peer review exists and is used. That lets us weed out compromised research from honest research, and gives you all the technology and medicine your life depends on.
The problem is politicians crippling the government because their pet projects don't get funding, not that the government spends money on scientific research.
They're not criminals until a judge says they are. Vigilantism isn't helping anyone.
That's not how due process works. Judges exist for a reason.
It wasn't. It was a report compiled by a US company from many sources, the main one being a British intelligence officer.
It's not helping anyone when you portray fantasy as fact.
Translation: "Look just how much I don't know and will proudly tell everyone! I'm a good example for some reason! This is fine!"