Too bad estoppel doesn't apply. They when they use contradictory arguments, replay one of their earlier arguments in the new case, and hold them to the least favorable statement they've made.
So what's a homeless person lose? They go from homeless and benfitless to homeless and benefitless.
Many of the working poor owe more than the have, so someone invading and nationalizing everything would nationalize the debt of the poor, and the assets of the rich, which would still be a massive net gain for the one doing the nationalization, and greatly benefit the bottom 10%.
Ah, the last word to say "I'm not going to respond to you, other than the last post to get the last word". And I note, you didn't ever address what I said, but focused on how I said it, running down the list of logical fallacies, hoping one would stick. I hope you seek professional treatment for your mental illness. Cheers.
The zealot is you, the person who believes that if there is one business out there that will not serve you based on whatever prejudice that the business holds, it must be made illegal for that business to exist even though the rules of the market and competition ensure that you have dozens, hundreds, thousands of options.
You are the zealot. You are so brainwashed by your ideology that you feel the need to ignore what everyone else says and lie and make up strawmen. I do not believe what you assert.
But what I say doesn't matter. You are like some loonitarian chatbot. What is said isn't listened to, other than to generate the next pre-programmed response.
Yeah, but he deducts all of it from his federal taxes. And when China invades and nationaizes Microsoft, how much money will Bill Gates have left? That's what the military is defending. Ensuring property rights, and Bill has infinitely more property than most people.
You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is.
I use the word the way 99% of the English speakers use it. You can't understand "I understand and I disagree" and repeat that I don't understand.
I get that you have a mental disease that makes you a closed-minded zealot. But I thought that you understood English. Apparently your mental disease refuses to let you understand that someone can understand you 100%, yet still disagree.
It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.
Not many hold your views, and if that's your morality, I'm happy to be immoral.
The right of property [owners] doesn't override the rights of the people. It's the other way around.
A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you.
So the Civil Rights movement was not related to any "rights"?
I read the blog in your sig, and it seems that the issue is that you use words outside their established definitions, not that others misunderstand. You do. Deliberately.
Yup. No true "whatever". You were the one that brought up "right" and "left". The ACLU is considered left. Radical left, often by those who are pro-gun. When you use words with unique definitions, you are no longer speaking English, and there's no point to discuss anything with you.
So a person has no rights. A "right" is only a restriction on the government, and not tied to a person. You can't have the right to travel, or the right to bear arms, as every "person" you deal with can take those "rights" from you. Up to the limits of criminal law.
That's the opposite of what the Founders of the USA said when crafting the Constitution, and I've never seen anyone agree with such an odd view of rights.
The ACLU has fought multiple times for Religious freedom in schools. That is, when Christian activities were banned, the ACLU stepped in and fought the schools to get the religious activities back into the schools.
So think you are confused as to what "left" means or does.
A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.
So the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can't murder you, but your neighbor can? You deserve no protections from your neighbor, as he can't impinge on your rights.
An affirmative defense is a defense that, if accepted, wins. Like the "insane" plea. If determined and accepted as insane at the time, then you "win". Period. Same with the statute of limitations, and all other affirmative defenses. It's just trivial to prove the date of the crime and the date of being charged, so it's treated more absolutely than the others.
Benefits for the poor are mainly for the poor. But someone with $100k of net debt, and no job would lose little if China invaded and nationalized all the industry and land. But would Bill Gates lose anything? So yes, the rich receive about 100% of the benefit of a standing military. The poor only benefit if they enlist to fight the rich-man's wars.
I can find nothing that indicates she failed to comply with any Congressional request. She provided 900 pages of emails in response to a Congressional request, and provided "all" emails later.
I followed the conversation, but that law can only be broken by failing to respond to a request. You identified no such request. Thus, by your statements, it would be impossible for her to have broken that law. That's why I wasn't following. The first "email request Hillary congress" I found was in regards to Benghazi. So, that's where I got that. In direct reply to your statement, and as on topic as I could be.
If you think she broke a law by failing to follow a Congressional demand, you should specify which one you mean.
As part of the email thing? Or is this another Benghazi conspiracy theory? Because that law doesn't say anything that would make a private email server illegal.
Or is non sequitur the only response you are capable of?
in the fair tax book which explains the proposed system, they explain that the initial rate is designed to be revenue neutral.
What I proposed is "revenue neutral" to the government as well. What Fair Tax does is link the tax to government spending, but I haven't seen it link the payout to inflation. I'm stating that the prebate should be linked to a livable payout, adjusted by inflation. And, like the Fair Tax, the tax rate should then be used to balance the budget. Though I'd go father and prohibit deficit spending, and instead adjust the taxes to cover spending increases.
Though I'd expect that it would make recessions worse, as when the economy gets worse, the taxes would go up (as consumer spending would go down, and government spending would go up). But that's a problem with Fair Tax as well.
Not everything evolves. Many things become evolutionary dead ends. Most creatures are. But people that don't understand evolution assign things to it that aren't in it, and believe that everything evolves.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad estoppel doesn't apply. They when they use contradictory arguments, replay one of their earlier arguments in the new case, and hold them to the least favorable statement they've made.
So what's a homeless person lose? They go from homeless and benfitless to homeless and benefitless.
Many of the working poor owe more than the have, so someone invading and nationalizing everything would nationalize the debt of the poor, and the assets of the rich, which would still be a massive net gain for the one doing the nationalization, and greatly benefit the bottom 10%.
Well, I've never been shown, in a lab, order from chaos without intelligent intervention.
And you've never been shown, in a lab, a scientific study proving that smoking causes cancer either.
So, are you going to doubt the overwhelmingly likely answer? Why?
Ah, the last word to say "I'm not going to respond to you, other than the last post to get the last word". And I note, you didn't ever address what I said, but focused on how I said it, running down the list of logical fallacies, hoping one would stick. I hope you seek professional treatment for your mental illness. Cheers.
"proper parenting" meaning luck, perceived as skill.
Some of the Pacific was just hours from April 3 when this story was posted.
The zealot is you, the person who believes that if there is one business out there that will not serve you based on whatever prejudice that the business holds, it must be made illegal for that business to exist even though the rules of the market and competition ensure that you have dozens, hundreds, thousands of options.
You are the zealot. You are so brainwashed by your ideology that you feel the need to ignore what everyone else says and lie and make up strawmen. I do not believe what you assert.
But what I say doesn't matter. You are like some loonitarian chatbot. What is said isn't listened to, other than to generate the next pre-programmed response.
Yeah, but he deducts all of it from his federal taxes. And when China invades and nationaizes Microsoft, how much money will Bill Gates have left? That's what the military is defending. Ensuring property rights, and Bill has infinitely more property than most people.
You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is.
I use the word the way 99% of the English speakers use it. You can't understand "I understand and I disagree" and repeat that I don't understand.
I get that you have a mental disease that makes you a closed-minded zealot. But I thought that you understood English. Apparently your mental disease refuses to let you understand that someone can understand you 100%, yet still disagree.
It's your opinion, not fact.
It wasn't a proverbial cookie jar. It was a literal cookie, thus a literal cookie jar.
It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.
Not many hold your views, and if that's your morality, I'm happy to be immoral.
The right of property [owners] doesn't override the rights of the people. It's the other way around.
Cars? The repoman took my fucking kidney.
Yeah, and being outside the US, my April Fool's Day ended about the time it started for Slashdot. So my April Fools is having it happen on the 2nd.
Ponies!!!
A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you.
So the Civil Rights movement was not related to any "rights"?
I read the blog in your sig, and it seems that the issue is that you use words outside their established definitions, not that others misunderstand. You do. Deliberately.
Yup. No true "whatever". You were the one that brought up "right" and "left". The ACLU is considered left. Radical left, often by those who are pro-gun. When you use words with unique definitions, you are no longer speaking English, and there's no point to discuss anything with you.
So a person has no rights. A "right" is only a restriction on the government, and not tied to a person. You can't have the right to travel, or the right to bear arms, as every "person" you deal with can take those "rights" from you. Up to the limits of criminal law.
That's the opposite of what the Founders of the USA said when crafting the Constitution, and I've never seen anyone agree with such an odd view of rights.
The ACLU has fought multiple times for Religious freedom in schools. That is, when Christian activities were banned, the ACLU stepped in and fought the schools to get the religious activities back into the schools.
So think you are confused as to what "left" means or does.
A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.
So the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can't murder you, but your neighbor can? You deserve no protections from your neighbor, as he can't impinge on your rights.
An affirmative defense is a defense that, if accepted, wins. Like the "insane" plea. If determined and accepted as insane at the time, then you "win". Period. Same with the statute of limitations, and all other affirmative defenses. It's just trivial to prove the date of the crime and the date of being charged, so it's treated more absolutely than the others.
Benefits for the poor are mainly for the poor. But someone with $100k of net debt, and no job would lose little if China invaded and nationalized all the industry and land. But would Bill Gates lose anything? So yes, the rich receive about 100% of the benefit of a standing military. The poor only benefit if they enlist to fight the rich-man's wars.
I can find nothing that indicates she failed to comply with any Congressional request. She provided 900 pages of emails in response to a Congressional request, and provided "all" emails later.
I followed the conversation, but that law can only be broken by failing to respond to a request. You identified no such request. Thus, by your statements, it would be impossible for her to have broken that law. That's why I wasn't following. The first "email request Hillary congress" I found was in regards to Benghazi. So, that's where I got that. In direct reply to your statement, and as on topic as I could be.
If you think she broke a law by failing to follow a Congressional demand, you should specify which one you mean.
As part of the email thing? Or is this another Benghazi conspiracy theory? Because that law doesn't say anything that would make a private email server illegal.
Or is non sequitur the only response you are capable of?
in the fair tax book which explains the proposed system, they explain that the initial rate is designed to be revenue neutral.
What I proposed is "revenue neutral" to the government as well. What Fair Tax does is link the tax to government spending, but I haven't seen it link the payout to inflation. I'm stating that the prebate should be linked to a livable payout, adjusted by inflation. And, like the Fair Tax, the tax rate should then be used to balance the budget. Though I'd go father and prohibit deficit spending, and instead adjust the taxes to cover spending increases.
Though I'd expect that it would make recessions worse, as when the economy gets worse, the taxes would go up (as consumer spending would go down, and government spending would go up). But that's a problem with Fair Tax as well.
Not everything evolves. Many things become evolutionary dead ends. Most creatures are. But people that don't understand evolution assign things to it that aren't in it, and believe that everything evolves.