Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.
This is a free world, you can think anything you want about the courts or even people hiring others to work for them. It just doesn't change reality much.
When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.
Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.
That's not how change happens.
but change is how bigotry happens. So either you hate them or they hate you. Or both happens. Either way, I'm willing to bet that there will not be much codependency on each other for quite some time.
If there are any marinas around, you will likely find pure gas.
This is because ethanol in most forms bonds with water easily and will even pull water from the humidity in the air. This isn't good around lakes and with vehicles intended to be on bodies of water.
However, it will likely cost a premium to get. Probably because it is a niche market or perhaps the lack of an additive oxygenate in the fuel which ethanol is supposed to be (as a replacement for MTBE)
What this is is someone trying to control the very use of language by arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently 'bad.' This is religious fundamentalist-level garbage.
It's also the world you live in. Whether you like it or not, people make impressions based on their interactions with you. These impressions override most everything you claim about yourself. Just ask yourself how many times a well dressed and respected person gets off with less penalties than the guy who shows up to court for the same charges acting like a street thug while trying to convince the judge he is an upstanding pillar of the community. There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution. It's a basic reason behind TPS reports and various other forms one has to muscle through while actually getting work done. It standardizes the communication process somewhat to make up for poor communication. Those who communicate better and are around better communicators, are likely to excel more so than those who do not communicate well. With the exception for foreigners for whom English is not a first language (for some reason, they are excused), not to many fortune 500 companies employ people with poor communication skills unless it is for some quota or to fill low level jobs that aren't really relevant to the operation. Those jobs are the lower paying jobs in the establishment too. It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
Sorry, but his summation seems about right to me. Not that I have any belief that you COULD have done anything except make things worse.
lol.. You say he is right then go right into countering him. You also go into how the government ignored everyone so it is likely that NOTHING could have happened that would have made it better.
As for publicly complaining, yes, various people did that from all sides. And it was totally ignored, whenever the govt. felt like ignoring it, and without any consequence to the govt. folk either actual in the present or plausible in the future.
Yes, and this is the exact reason why you need to give up on third parties and adopt a strategy like the tea party. I know they are evil incarnated and vile and all that bullshit around here because 1 person at 1 rally raised a confederate flag so that makes them all racists and because they held up passage of a budget and the government got shut down and the news was all over how the government had to close an open air memorial dedicated to WWII vets and threaten them with arrest when they wanted to see it or how they put up road barriers to pull over spots on highways so motorists could look at Mount Rushmore from a distance. But they have the right strategy- infiltrate the party most resembling them and effect change from within. When those second amendment supporters were bitching about spending, they listened and tried to do something about it- although failing in the process. But if the problem is government not listening, they at least listened which is more then you can say for your tried and true party liners or the third parties who never seem to get elected to anything important.
At one point the "right to bear arms" was an important defense against the power of the government. It hasn't been for over a century, and its importance has been monotonicly declining during that entire period. Please remember that during most of its lifetime the proportion of the populace owning guns in the USSR was higher than in the US.
I don't think this is true. Remember the battle of Athens? As just demonstrated with the cattle grazing BS by that racists up north, when citizens with guns showed up, the massive government sector quasi military backed down. The BLM showed up in force complete with snipers and fully automatic weapons thinking they could just flash a gun around and do anything they wanted. Now I don't particularly support Bundy outside of him sharing a name with the fictional Al Bundy (who is a hero to many), but at the same time, I found the show of force appalling coming from a government entity who had not been threatened at all before hand. It's the reason why we read about armed death squads called SWAT Teams invading the wrong house all the time and killing the family dog or the owner who opens the bedroom door with a ball bat in his hand because he rightfully thinks his life is in danger from a home invasion.
IF more people cared about their second amendment rights, government wouldn't do this crap.
I think that the crucial turning point was when "a well organized militia" became interpreted as a militia organized and run by the government. OTOH, I'm not real sure what our cities would be like if they were dominated by competing rival private militia. The interpretation may have been a practical necessity, even if it's a violation of the original intent.
A militia- private or organized by the government is not above the law. Competing militias could not violate the laws and go around battling each other or do anything that violates the law. The most they could do is start a cola type war where they advertise and compete for market share. But the original militia was never an organized militia. We did not have a standing army (had somewhat of a navy) at the time. Although we did later
It's supposed to be the bulwark against government overreach but these people were nowhere to be seen when the US government started torturing people. They were completely absent when the US government lied to get into a war. They did nothing when the US government for the third time in a decade was caught red-handed wiretapping its own citizens. They were at home polishing their guns and patting themselves on the back when the US reserved the right to kill people without due process.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. They were certainly there, some protesting and some supporting and some in parts of what you said while not in others. Stop thinking everyone around you is just like you and the rest are the opposite of you.
The behavior of the US in the past 30 years has shown me one thing: the only thing the believers in the 2nd amendment will fight for is the 2nd amendment. It's not the bulwark: it's the only amendment they care about....and the rest of us don't have any guns.:->
Like I said, get your head out of your ass. Up in arms figuratively does not mean pointing guns. As long as there is the ability to address these problems through the courts, elected representation, and exposing the problems, there is no need to stand on the ammo box.
It is the soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box. any order is fine as long as the ammo box is the last stand.
Likely because many people are cutting the cord and getting most of their entertainment from the internet and broadcast stations.
I know people who have netflix and Hulu accounts and do not even bother with broadcast TV. They have the ability to, but don't see the need until some local emergency comes around and even then rely mostly on radio. I do the same, I cut cable out 6 years ago and watch what I want on the network's web portal, hulu, broadcast channels, or some streaming site. 200+ channels of reruns, infomercials, and the occasional show I like just isn't worth the $80 or whatever it was costing when I already was paying for high speed internet on top of it and could find the shows I like there.
the problem here is that if government was actually capable of overseeing things like this, it wouldn't be allowed to happen.
Now I get that you are blaiming private enterprise and praising government but lets seriously look at this. If a private enterprise had that kind of mismanagement, it would fire a lot of people, possible go out of business, and likely be sued by its shareholders. Government manages a project like that, and it is business as usual with critics being deflected at the outside group.
So, if private business managed something like the healthcare.gov roll out, would those people behind it still be employed by that company? I doubt it unless it is a government contract and their misfeasance only means more business for the company. I highly suspect if it was a private company contracting, you would have the equivalent of a slave driver cracking whips and threatening everyone as much as possible so that even if there still were problems, it wouldn't have been as noticeable. but then again, I do know there are perpetual software projects that seem to never be finished or working as expected. But on project where you can measure physical results like the amount of road paved or water lines buried, it wouldn't ever come out the same as if government was the manager. And on the off chances that it did, those companies behind the failures wouldn't be working for them ever again as well as lawsuits to recover wasted time and money. but when government is behind it, it seems like we just move on to the next big contract and ignore the failures unless an actual bigwig is behind it. But that isn't rule even for Obama.
If you actually are a small business that heavily depends on the post office to ship stuff, you are likely nothing more than an Ebay seller who raids local yard sales and second hand stores in order to hike the price up selling on the internet while relying on people's good will to offer stuff cheaper to the poor and differences in the costs of living from one area to another.
First, the post office is constitutionally mandated as such are the roads. Take them completely out of the small government gripe. They have no legitimate place in the conversation of small government save a constitutional amendment in the future that removes it. If anything, the gripe with the post office is the constantly increasing the cost of postage to citizens while decreasing the costs to businesses then claiming they are out of money and wanting to raid the retirement fund. The beef with the post office is mismanagement not small government.
You should actually investigate what the small government gripes are and what it is about before spouting such nonsense. The entire premise of it is to bring the federal government back to what it is constitutionally mandated and press the rest onto the states where local people have more say in what happens in their locality as it was originally intended.
So taxing property is the only way to pay those people who provide the services you use right now? We have no other way for government to collect money and make those payments?
Now I understand the concept of services provided but it isn't always the property owners demanding that or those services. I'm sure this move by the FCC is making some progressive wet dreams right now. I mean we now have government agencies who can simply expand their mandate "at will" by contriving connections to the old mandate that are so weakly held they wouldn't support a straw in the wind. The courts don't care and usher big government in for everything except political donations-speech which they refuse to allow anything to regulate it. If only you could make the internet become connected to political donations-speech somehow they won't be so keen to regulate it.
I told them I was a devil worshiper to get rid of them once. They went and got their pastor or whatever and came back to convert me. I told them to get off the property yet again and they held prayer meetings on the sidewalk in front of my house for the next week or so. They stopped everyone who walked by and asked them to say a prayer for me because I was on a dark path filled with lies or something of the sort.
I finally had to tell them that I only said I was a devil worshiper to get them to leave and if I had known they would have done what they did, I would have just shot them instead and told the police they were trying to attack me.
I have a fence and a big dog now. The most I get is flyers left on the mailbox. But if I ever move or if Grady becomes an inside dog in his old age, I would like to know the secret to keeping them away without inviting a full blown circus.
I wonder if they couldn't they just sell them to themselves. Maybe create a wholly owned subsidiary, buy them, sell them back and cycle through the BS while being technically compliant with the law or regulation.
I don't think they are in any different position on the sales, but they certainly could be on the ability to produce. Most of this stuff is patent encumbered so there is a cost there as well as likely issues with using the same design with separate power trains that are so radically different.
As for the English speaking, all you have to do is explain to them that you have a hearing problem and need to speak with someone who is accent free in English. They will bend over backwards to get you to a native English speaker (quasi Americans with disabilities act and all).
Now the downside to this is more time on hold. The upside- beside understanding what they are saying- is that the native English speaker will likely by a higher level tech who can go outside the chart without delving into "please insert the restore CD into the computer" or at least be able to warn about backups first. but there is no guarantee. Well, I guess now there is no restore CD, press key combination and select restore?
I don't disagree with that but that can only happen when you have options. If state and federal regulation is requiring a loss, they are going to try to mitigate it.
What we have here is a company more or less forced into a position and therefore they would be forced into mitigation. Unless you think the entire loss is not real and this is just a publicity stunt using reverse psychology in order to generate sales.
Do you think in this cut throat world that a CEO isn't already exhausting every resource he can muster in order to cap the damages on a loss before saying don't give us your business?
I know you mean well, but that's a bit like saying all they got to do is hit/catch the ball to win. It neglects that there are forces preventing the hit or catch. Sometimes you can overcome those forces and sometimes you cannot. But please remember, you too can become a millionaire, all you gotta do it get 1 million bucks.
I'm not conflating anything and you are being a drama queen with her facts wrong.
You are innately wrong. Without government standing up for the citizens of this country, we have nothing more than a feudal state where the wealthy do as they please, and fuck everyone else.
Wrong. It has been the stifling regulation that does more to protect established wealthy than proffer regulation that would be effective without limiting the little guy. Please read this article that explains it better than I can.
That's the direction it's going with the fascist corporate enablers on SCOTUS the past decade, but that's not government... that's ideologues who are dismantling the government in favor of corporations and oligarchs. When "the rich and powerful take advantage" is not a definition of "government help" in any sense of the phrase, or reality.
Unless you are talking about campaign donations, I am clueless to what you mean. If you are talking about campaigns and donations PACs and Super PACs, then you and I are in agreement about it being politicians. I personally do not care if BigOil or WalMart or whatever spends a bagillion dollars on some candidate. You will know they are doing it and you will either agree or disagree with the candidates. But make no mistake, it is the politicians- duly elected by the people, who are the root cause of this. How many politicians are not well off and wealthy if not millionaires. How many went to congress that way. We aren't exactly over paying them.
You also seem to forget that Bush Jr had a republican house and senate for his first 6 years, and what that got us was them pissing away a budget surplus that was projected to be able to pay off the entirety of the national debt in 11-13 years, the first two wars in the countries history that did not come with a tax increase to help pay for them, and a taxpayer money giveaway to big pharma by enshrining the price fixing/no negotiation of medication costs in Medicare Part D.
Lets not make stuff up simply because we do not understand it. First, I said the congress works best when it's controlled by the opposite party as the white house. Bush and company is hardly anything close to that. Second, Bush's first 2 budgets, even after the tax cuts, projected continues surpluses. what happened was 9/11 and the economy dropped big time. This caused expansion of the economy to slow and tax income to drop. This is the same process that caused a lot of Obama's massive trillion dollar deficit spending. Third, most of the Clinton surplus was smoke and mirrors anyways. Well, let me put it another way. Changes in regulation scheduled to take effect regardless of who was in office, the expiration of the roth IRA conversions, and the end of the Y2K specific economic activity would have stressed any president's ability to maintain a surplus even without 9/11 and the recession that followed. Finally, the wars did not go on budget until Obama put them there in his first year of office. The wars had nothing to do with a budget surplus. Bush funded the wars on off budget emergency spending that had to be renewed ever 6 or 8 months. This is the way wars should be funded because A) you do not want to permanently budget for war, and B) due to rules on new spending needing to be paid for, when the wars die down, instead of stopping the spending, it ends up being spent on other things. Or in other words, if your war is spending 8 billion a year, off budget, then the war is over, you simply stop spending the 8 billion a year. If the war is on budget, that 8 billion can go to charcoal filtered underpants research or a bike path to the bridge to nowhere due to it being a popular tourist attraction now. And yes, we have seen most all of the on budget war spending getting spent elsewhere now that it isn't needed for the wars.
But what you are doing it getting confused between the
What the price of tea in China is at any given time has nothing to do with a specific comment made. If you cannot follow along, please sit down until someone explains it to you.
Here is a hint about conversations. Someone says something. They use words to convey a message. You or someone else will receive and process those words and respond based on those words. If you have something to add, then by all means add it. But do not ignore the words in order to impose something completely outside the conversation.
If you bother with that article, you will see that the US actually ranks higher than the UK, Germany, Japan Russia and China.
But we also see that it is misleading to think of such things as you put it. The United Arab Emirates among the top of the list and it doesn't exactly fall within your definition.
and don't put words in my mouth. If I want something said, I certainly do not need idiots saying it for me. I have no comparison of President Obama to Carl Marx or Friedrich Engels for they were competent to some degree in their delusions.
lol.. It wasn't obvious? I said I wasn't going to take what you said in another post serious and ignore it because you were too lazy to address me directly.
That depends on what you mean by "hardwired." I would say it is due to instincts and self-preservation. Not wanting to get thrown in prison because you criticized your government is pretty damn rational, in my opinion.
Instinct? Isn't that the same thing as I'm saying? Because you exist- there are certain things thust upon you in your creation?
f you have a system like ours that is intended to guarantee people certain rights, perhaps not. But if society as a whole rejects the idea of a certain right, it could be considered mighty silly to say your right was infringed upon.
Not at all. Your right to self preservation is a right regardless of what society says. All they can do it prevent you from using it.
I thought you said rights couldn't be taken.
If society gives them, then society can take them. If they are endowed by their Creator or exist because you exist, all they can do it violate, infringe, or ignore them.
And furthermore, you have offered zero actual proof that my secular attitude is the reason that rights are 'taken.' History isn't on your side, either, as there were many people who believe as you do, and yet rights were violated all the time, and continue to be.
Your secular attitude? Is that what they are calling you evangelical atheist nowadays? I offered logic- but not logic that shows anything about secularism. I offered logic that shows how your knee jerk rejection of anything you think might be connected to theism and your inane attempts to push the subject from a firm (rights are above society and government) to an at will (society grants rights) is how people become oppressed. If society gives by blessing, then society can take by blessing.
So, please provide scientific evidence that not believing that rights are inherent somehow leads to tyranny. This isn't one of those silly "philosophical" questions, but one that asks for actual proof.
Can you not follow logic? And yes, the question of rights is most certainly a philosophical question.
Because it sure seems to be like it is people who don't care about certain rights that are the cause of these problems. I think people who accept the TSA, free speech zones, censorship, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc. are the problem, because they're directly fighting against certain rights.
Yes, the people who think the government gives rights and are able to take them away. Oh, do you mean that people who think rights are inalienable and come from a higher source than government are the ones cheer leading all that violation of their rights? Well, maybe there are some that don't care if your rights are violated, but they will bark a hell of a lot when it is theirs.
More Conservative than Reagan and Nixon. But I wouldn't say the EPA of the time was liberal or conservative. We caught rivers on fire and did so somewhat often. We had trashed the area and it was a health concern more than anything. What makes it liberal/conservative now is how much cleaner the environment is or isn't. One seems to think everything needs to be regulated under it and the other thinks it has been enough. Only if you look with today's eyes would you think it is a liberal concept.
Poor form only in your opinion. Copying and pasting would've been barely any different from my perspective.
lol.. Of course my opinion. I'm the one you are trying to speak to aren't I? You are not a very clever troll are you.
Those rights don't exist in any meaningful form, except perhaps as personal desires.
What would cause a group of people, some completely independent from each other to have the same desires if it wasn't hardwired within them or part of their existence?
They may have been rights that people wished they had, but other than that, they didn't exist in any meaningful form.
So are you saying they disappeared and a claim that they are infringing on your rights would be fallacious?
More like, as soon as society recognized a right, they would be there for you to enjoy. Of course, your desire to have a certain right recognized would've been there.
You seem to be dodging the question.. did those rights exist before society granted them? Why would society grant rights if many people didn't have the same desires? Could it be because those rights are inalienable and bestowed by their creator as in exist because they exist?
Again, where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist?
They are hardwired into people. They come from a power higher than society or government, they exist because you exist.
Saying it's "philosophical" means absolutely nothing to me, much like arguments for the existence of deities.
You should work on changing that. Your reasoning is the reasons rights are taken and why people become oppressed. I do not care about your hangups on deities or infatuation with theism's. Creator in this sense is the creation of you. Deities, Gods, Martians, none of that comes into play. They exist because you exist.
We do not need anyone to look after the little guy. We need to get the government out of the road enough so that the little guy can do as he pleases and have a chance at succeeding.
You are in this trap of thinking only the government can help but get pissed off because when the government does help, the rich and powerful take advantage and it is obvious on an exponential level. Don't get me wrong, we some regulation, effective regulation that is pointed and sharp, but for the most part, we need the government to step back and let you or the little guy next to you do as you damn well please. That is what freedom is about, that is what allows you to succeed to your potential.
BTW, the best part about Clinton being president is that he has a republican congress. This forced them to actually look at what was going on and attack the problems rather than appease the ideological bases. Bush II didn't suffer this and it shows. Obama didn't suffer this his first term and it shows. Clinton, Reagan, and Bush I did and anyone living through those times would take them over today any day.
Because it's basically just a copy/paste? I don't understand how that would affect the validity of what I said in the other comment.
Like I said, it is poor form. If you cannot be assed to direct your comments to me directly, I'm not going to consider them important enough to waste my time on.
No one is knee jerking.
You sure are.. It's somewhat funny too.. Well funny in a pathetic type of way.
I don't think what I'm saying is such a hard concept to follow, either.
Except what you are saying is wrong.
And it does disappear in the sense that many people don't recognize that right of society at large doesn't, but there would still be individuals who personally believe they should have that right, and it is they who could fight to get it back.
People like to serve themselves. Look at how many dictators and repressive regimes exempt themselves from the madness they lay on their subjects. You will do what I say when I say- or do as I say not as I do. Do you know why that is? Because they think they have those rights and will gain power and more rights by oppressing their people. It doesn't mean those rights do not exist, it means they are oppressed.
They can. That has happened many times in the past. By "take them," I take that to mean that society at large will generally ignore your pleas.
So, when those societies took those rights, did they disappear or where they simply violated? If they disappear, then why do they keep surfacing and are somewhat the point of conflict when they do?
No? Not at all? How do they differ, then? Where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist? Can you scientifically validate their existence? If society at large doesn't recognize that a certain right exists and acts accordingly, how can it be said to exist?
Yes, not at all. The difference is as soon as they stop oppressing your rights, they are there for you to enjoy. IF society grants them, then society would have to grant them again because they disappeared.
But I was wondering how long it was going to take before you stepped up to the alter and started preaching the superiority of science. I knew it was going to happen because the script you are following has been written by fools long before you.
Here is your problem. Rights and the existence of rights is philosophical, not scientific. Science cannot answer philosophical questions because it deals with opinion and values outside of science. Here is an example, murder is bad. Nothing scientifically says it is bad but I doubt you want to be murdered. I doubt you want to be mugged, raped, or maimed either. Scientifically, nothing validates that those actions are bad. Now, if society grants you a right to not be murdered, not be mugged or raped or maimed, society can simply allow it. Sure you don't like it but nothing would be wrong with it. Unless, those rights come from your existence- you being here gives you the right to expect others not to do those things, it gives you the right to defend yourself when someone wants to violate you or your rights. The philosophical answer is that those rights come from other than society or government and people have been trying to express those rights since the beginning of time- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or in other words, the right to make your life how you want it to be.
What exists is people's personal beliefs, not the rights themselves. Unless you mean in people's heads.
So if society said it was ok, then you would be fine with raping someone (you or a loved one) with a baseball bat? Of course not, because that is bad or evil which is a philosophical question whose answer is that you have rights higher then society or government and infringing on them is bad or evil. But if it is just what you want, then all I have to do is find an overriding reason to justify raping you or murdering you and society says all is fine.
The problem id that there will be no one with standing to challange the constitutionality of the federal law so until it is ruled unconstitutional, it will be presumed constitutional.
Sadly, there is a process that needs to take place. They are abusing it and will continue to.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a free world, you can think anything you want about the courts or even people hiring others to work for them. It just doesn't change reality much.
Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.
but change is how bigotry happens. So either you hate them or they hate you. Or both happens. Either way, I'm willing to bet that there will not be much codependency on each other for quite some time.
If there are any marinas around, you will likely find pure gas.
This is because ethanol in most forms bonds with water easily and will even pull water from the humidity in the air. This isn't good around lakes and with vehicles intended to be on bodies of water.
However, it will likely cost a premium to get. Probably because it is a niche market or perhaps the lack of an additive oxygenate in the fuel which ethanol is supposed to be (as a replacement for MTBE)
It's also the world you live in. Whether you like it or not, people make impressions based on their interactions with you. These impressions override most everything you claim about yourself. Just ask yourself how many times a well dressed and respected person gets off with less penalties than the guy who shows up to court for the same charges acting like a street thug while trying to convince the judge he is an upstanding pillar of the community. There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution. It's a basic reason behind TPS reports and various other forms one has to muscle through while actually getting work done. It standardizes the communication process somewhat to make up for poor communication. Those who communicate better and are around better communicators, are likely to excel more so than those who do not communicate well. With the exception for foreigners for whom English is not a first language (for some reason, they are excused), not to many fortune 500 companies employ people with poor communication skills unless it is for some quota or to fill low level jobs that aren't really relevant to the operation. Those jobs are the lower paying jobs in the establishment too. It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
lol.. You say he is right then go right into countering him. You also go into how the government ignored everyone so it is likely that NOTHING could have happened that would have made it better.
Yes, and this is the exact reason why you need to give up on third parties and adopt a strategy like the tea party. I know they are evil incarnated and vile and all that bullshit around here because 1 person at 1 rally raised a confederate flag so that makes them all racists and because they held up passage of a budget and the government got shut down and the news was all over how the government had to close an open air memorial dedicated to WWII vets and threaten them with arrest when they wanted to see it or how they put up road barriers to pull over spots on highways so motorists could look at Mount Rushmore from a distance. But they have the right strategy- infiltrate the party most resembling them and effect change from within. When those second amendment supporters were bitching about spending, they listened and tried to do something about it- although failing in the process. But if the problem is government not listening, they at least listened which is more then you can say for your tried and true party liners or the third parties who never seem to get elected to anything important.
I don't think this is true. Remember the battle of Athens? As just demonstrated with the cattle grazing BS by that racists up north, when citizens with guns showed up, the massive government sector quasi military backed down. The BLM showed up in force complete with snipers and fully automatic weapons thinking they could just flash a gun around and do anything they wanted. Now I don't particularly support Bundy outside of him sharing a name with the fictional Al Bundy (who is a hero to many), but at the same time, I found the show of force appalling coming from a government entity who had not been threatened at all before hand. It's the reason why we read about armed death squads called SWAT Teams invading the wrong house all the time and killing the family dog or the owner who opens the bedroom door with a ball bat in his hand because he rightfully thinks his life is in danger from a home invasion.
IF more people cared about their second amendment rights, government wouldn't do this crap.
A militia- private or organized by the government is not above the law. Competing militias could not violate the laws and go around battling each other or do anything that violates the law. The most they could do is start a cola type war where they advertise and compete for market share. But the original militia was never an organized militia. We did not have a standing army (had somewhat of a navy) at the time. Although we did later
I don't think you know what you are talking about. They were certainly there, some protesting and some supporting and some in parts of what you said while not in others. Stop thinking everyone around you is just like you and the rest are the opposite of you.
Like I said, get your head out of your ass. Up in arms figuratively does not mean pointing guns. As long as there is the ability to address these problems through the courts, elected representation, and exposing the problems, there is no need to stand on the ammo box.
It is the soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box. any order is fine as long as the ammo box is the last stand.
Likely because many people are cutting the cord and getting most of their entertainment from the internet and broadcast stations.
I know people who have netflix and Hulu accounts and do not even bother with broadcast TV. They have the ability to, but don't see the need until some local emergency comes around and even then rely mostly on radio. I do the same, I cut cable out 6 years ago and watch what I want on the network's web portal, hulu, broadcast channels, or some streaming site. 200+ channels of reruns, infomercials, and the occasional show I like just isn't worth the $80 or whatever it was costing when I already was paying for high speed internet on top of it and could find the shows I like there.
the problem here is that if government was actually capable of overseeing things like this, it wouldn't be allowed to happen.
Now I get that you are blaiming private enterprise and praising government but lets seriously look at this. If a private enterprise had that kind of mismanagement, it would fire a lot of people, possible go out of business, and likely be sued by its shareholders. Government manages a project like that, and it is business as usual with critics being deflected at the outside group.
So, if private business managed something like the healthcare.gov roll out, would those people behind it still be employed by that company? I doubt it unless it is a government contract and their misfeasance only means more business for the company. I highly suspect if it was a private company contracting, you would have the equivalent of a slave driver cracking whips and threatening everyone as much as possible so that even if there still were problems, it wouldn't have been as noticeable. but then again, I do know there are perpetual software projects that seem to never be finished or working as expected. But on project where you can measure physical results like the amount of road paved or water lines buried, it wouldn't ever come out the same as if government was the manager. And on the off chances that it did, those companies behind the failures wouldn't be working for them ever again as well as lawsuits to recover wasted time and money. but when government is behind it, it seems like we just move on to the next big contract and ignore the failures unless an actual bigwig is behind it. But that isn't rule even for Obama.
I'm calling BS on ya.
If you actually are a small business that heavily depends on the post office to ship stuff, you are likely nothing more than an Ebay seller who raids local yard sales and second hand stores in order to hike the price up selling on the internet while relying on people's good will to offer stuff cheaper to the poor and differences in the costs of living from one area to another.
First, the post office is constitutionally mandated as such are the roads. Take them completely out of the small government gripe. They have no legitimate place in the conversation of small government save a constitutional amendment in the future that removes it. If anything, the gripe with the post office is the constantly increasing the cost of postage to citizens while decreasing the costs to businesses then claiming they are out of money and wanting to raid the retirement fund. The beef with the post office is mismanagement not small government.
You should actually investigate what the small government gripes are and what it is about before spouting such nonsense. The entire premise of it is to bring the federal government back to what it is constitutionally mandated and press the rest onto the states where local people have more say in what happens in their locality as it was originally intended.
So taxing property is the only way to pay those people who provide the services you use right now? We have no other way for government to collect money and make those payments?
Now I understand the concept of services provided but it isn't always the property owners demanding that or those services. I'm sure this move by the FCC is making some progressive wet dreams right now. I mean we now have government agencies who can simply expand their mandate "at will" by contriving connections to the old mandate that are so weakly held they wouldn't support a straw in the wind. The courts don't care and usher big government in for everything except political donations-speech which they refuse to allow anything to regulate it. If only you could make the internet become connected to political donations-speech somehow they won't be so keen to regulate it.
Who is your grandmother?
I told them I was a devil worshiper to get rid of them once. They went and got their pastor or whatever and came back to convert me. I told them to get off the property yet again and they held prayer meetings on the sidewalk in front of my house for the next week or so. They stopped everyone who walked by and asked them to say a prayer for me because I was on a dark path filled with lies or something of the sort.
I finally had to tell them that I only said I was a devil worshiper to get them to leave and if I had known they would have done what they did, I would have just shot them instead and told the police they were trying to attack me.
I have a fence and a big dog now. The most I get is flyers left on the mailbox. But if I ever move or if Grady becomes an inside dog in his old age, I would like to know the secret to keeping them away without inviting a full blown circus.
I wonder if they couldn't they just sell them to themselves. Maybe create a wholly owned subsidiary, buy them, sell them back and cycle through the BS while being technically compliant with the law or regulation.
Hmm..
I don't think they are in any different position on the sales, but they certainly could be on the ability to produce. Most of this stuff is patent encumbered so there is a cost there as well as likely issues with using the same design with separate power trains that are so radically different.
But posturing is likely just as good of a guess.
As for the English speaking, all you have to do is explain to them that you have a hearing problem and need to speak with someone who is accent free in English. They will bend over backwards to get you to a native English speaker (quasi Americans with disabilities act and all).
Now the downside to this is more time on hold. The upside- beside understanding what they are saying- is that the native English speaker will likely by a higher level tech who can go outside the chart without delving into "please insert the restore CD into the computer" or at least be able to warn about backups first. but there is no guarantee. Well, I guess now there is no restore CD, press key combination and select restore?
I don't disagree with that but that can only happen when you have options. If state and federal regulation is requiring a loss, they are going to try to mitigate it.
What we have here is a company more or less forced into a position and therefore they would be forced into mitigation. Unless you think the entire loss is not real and this is just a publicity stunt using reverse psychology in order to generate sales.
Do you think in this cut throat world that a CEO isn't already exhausting every resource he can muster in order to cap the damages on a loss before saying don't give us your business?
I know you mean well, but that's a bit like saying all they got to do is hit/catch the ball to win. It neglects that there are forces preventing the hit or catch. Sometimes you can overcome those forces and sometimes you cannot. But please remember, you too can become a millionaire, all you gotta do it get 1 million bucks.
I'm not conflating anything and you are being a drama queen with her facts wrong.
Wrong. It has been the stifling regulation that does more to protect established wealthy than proffer regulation that would be effective without limiting the little guy. Please read this article that explains it better than I can.
Unless you are talking about campaign donations, I am clueless to what you mean. If you are talking about campaigns and donations PACs and Super PACs, then you and I are in agreement about it being politicians. I personally do not care if BigOil or WalMart or whatever spends a bagillion dollars on some candidate. You will know they are doing it and you will either agree or disagree with the candidates. But make no mistake, it is the politicians- duly elected by the people, who are the root cause of this. How many politicians are not well off and wealthy if not millionaires. How many went to congress that way. We aren't exactly over paying them.
Lets not make stuff up simply because we do not understand it. First, I said the congress works best when it's controlled by the opposite party as the white house. Bush and company is hardly anything close to that. Second, Bush's first 2 budgets, even after the tax cuts, projected continues surpluses. what happened was 9/11 and the economy dropped big time. This caused expansion of the economy to slow and tax income to drop. This is the same process that caused a lot of Obama's massive trillion dollar deficit spending. Third, most of the Clinton surplus was smoke and mirrors anyways. Well, let me put it another way. Changes in regulation scheduled to take effect regardless of who was in office, the expiration of the roth IRA conversions, and the end of the Y2K specific economic activity would have stressed any president's ability to maintain a surplus even without 9/11 and the recession that followed. Finally, the wars did not go on budget until Obama put them there in his first year of office. The wars had nothing to do with a budget surplus. Bush funded the wars on off budget emergency spending that had to be renewed ever 6 or 8 months. This is the way wars should be funded because A) you do not want to permanently budget for war, and B) due to rules on new spending needing to be paid for, when the wars die down, instead of stopping the spending, it ends up being spent on other things. Or in other words, if your war is spending 8 billion a year, off budget, then the war is over, you simply stop spending the 8 billion a year. If the war is on budget, that 8 billion can go to charcoal filtered underpants research or a bike path to the bridge to nowhere due to it being a popular tourist attraction now. And yes, we have seen most all of the on budget war spending getting spent elsewhere now that it isn't needed for the wars.
But what you are doing it getting confused between the
What the price of tea in China is at any given time has nothing to do with a specific comment made. If you cannot follow along, please sit down until someone explains it to you.
Here is a hint about conversations. Someone says something. They use words to convey a message. You or someone else will receive and process those words and respond based on those words. If you have something to add, then by all means add it. But do not ignore the words in order to impose something completely outside the conversation.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
If you bother with that article, you will see that the US actually ranks higher than the UK, Germany, Japan Russia and China.
But we also see that it is misleading to think of such things as you put it. The United Arab Emirates among the top of the list and it doesn't exactly fall within your definition.
and don't put words in my mouth. If I want something said, I certainly do not need idiots saying it for me. I have no comparison of President Obama to Carl Marx or Friedrich Engels for they were competent to some degree in their delusions.
lol.. It wasn't obvious? I said I wasn't going to take what you said in another post serious and ignore it because you were too lazy to address me directly.
Instinct? Isn't that the same thing as I'm saying? Because you exist- there are certain things thust upon you in your creation?
Not at all. Your right to self preservation is a right regardless of what society says. All they can do it prevent you from using it.
If society gives them, then society can take them. If they are endowed by their Creator or exist because you exist, all they can do it violate, infringe, or ignore them.
Your secular attitude? Is that what they are calling you evangelical atheist nowadays? I offered logic- but not logic that shows anything about secularism. I offered logic that shows how your knee jerk rejection of anything you think might be connected to theism and your inane attempts to push the subject from a firm (rights are above society and government) to an at will (society grants rights) is how people become oppressed. If society gives by blessing, then society can take by blessing.
Can you not follow logic? And yes, the question of rights is most certainly a philosophical question.
Yes, the people who think the government gives rights and are able to take them away. Oh, do you mean that people who think rights are inalienable and come from a higher source than government are the ones cheer leading all that violation of their rights? Well, maybe there are some that don't care if your rights are violated, but they will bark a hell of a lot when it is theirs.
The comment was about Reagan not Nixon.. Or can you not tell the two apart?
Obama is more conservative than Reagan.
I guess a reply under it mentioned Nixon.
More Conservative than Reagan and Nixon. But I wouldn't say the EPA of the time was liberal or conservative. We caught rivers on fire and did so somewhat often. We had trashed the area and it was a health concern more than anything. What makes it liberal/conservative now is how much cleaner the environment is or isn't. One seems to think everything needs to be regulated under it and the other thinks it has been enough. Only if you look with today's eyes would you think it is a liberal concept.
lol.. Of course my opinion. I'm the one you are trying to speak to aren't I? You are not a very clever troll are you.
What would cause a group of people, some completely independent from each other to have the same desires if it wasn't hardwired within them or part of their existence?
So are you saying they disappeared and a claim that they are infringing on your rights would be fallacious?
You seem to be dodging the question.. did those rights exist before society granted them? Why would society grant rights if many people didn't have the same desires? Could it be because those rights are inalienable and bestowed by their creator as in exist because they exist?
They are hardwired into people. They come from a power higher than society or government, they exist because you exist.
You should work on changing that. Your reasoning is the reasons rights are taken and why people become oppressed. I do not care about your hangups on deities or infatuation with theism's. Creator in this sense is the creation of you. Deities, Gods, Martians, none of that comes into play. They exist because you exist.
Why don't you provide some links... I've heard this claim before but never see the links from a creditable source.
We do not need anyone to look after the little guy. We need to get the government out of the road enough so that the little guy can do as he pleases and have a chance at succeeding.
You are in this trap of thinking only the government can help but get pissed off because when the government does help, the rich and powerful take advantage and it is obvious on an exponential level. Don't get me wrong, we some regulation, effective regulation that is pointed and sharp, but for the most part, we need the government to step back and let you or the little guy next to you do as you damn well please. That is what freedom is about, that is what allows you to succeed to your potential.
BTW, the best part about Clinton being president is that he has a republican congress. This forced them to actually look at what was going on and attack the problems rather than appease the ideological bases. Bush II didn't suffer this and it shows. Obama didn't suffer this his first term and it shows. Clinton, Reagan, and Bush I did and anyone living through those times would take them over today any day.
Like I said, it is poor form. If you cannot be assed to direct your comments to me directly, I'm not going to consider them important enough to waste my time on.
You sure are.. It's somewhat funny too.. Well funny in a pathetic type of way.
Except what you are saying is wrong.
People like to serve themselves. Look at how many dictators and repressive regimes exempt themselves from the madness they lay on their subjects. You will do what I say when I say- or do as I say not as I do. Do you know why that is? Because they think they have those rights and will gain power and more rights by oppressing their people. It doesn't mean those rights do not exist, it means they are oppressed.
So, when those societies took those rights, did they disappear or where they simply violated? If they disappear, then why do they keep surfacing and are somewhat the point of conflict when they do?
Yes, not at all. The difference is as soon as they stop oppressing your rights, they are there for you to enjoy. IF society grants them, then society would have to grant them again because they disappeared.
But I was wondering how long it was going to take before you stepped up to the alter and started preaching the superiority of science. I knew it was going to happen because the script you are following has been written by fools long before you.
Here is your problem. Rights and the existence of rights is philosophical, not scientific. Science cannot answer philosophical questions because it deals with opinion and values outside of science. Here is an example, murder is bad. Nothing scientifically says it is bad but I doubt you want to be murdered. I doubt you want to be mugged, raped, or maimed either. Scientifically, nothing validates that those actions are bad. Now, if society grants you a right to not be murdered, not be mugged or raped or maimed, society can simply allow it. Sure you don't like it but nothing would be wrong with it. Unless, those rights come from your existence- you being here gives you the right to expect others not to do those things, it gives you the right to defend yourself when someone wants to violate you or your rights. The philosophical answer is that those rights come from other than society or government and people have been trying to express those rights since the beginning of time- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or in other words, the right to make your life how you want it to be.
So if society said it was ok, then you would be fine with raping someone (you or a loved one) with a baseball bat? Of course not, because that is bad or evil which is a philosophical question whose answer is that you have rights higher then society or government and infringing on them is bad or evil. But if it is just what you want, then all I have to do is find an overriding reason to justify raping you or murdering you and society says all is fine.
Lol.. yup.
The problem id that there will be no one with standing to challange the constitutionality of the federal law so until it is ruled unconstitutional, it will be presumed constitutional.
Sadly, there is a process that needs to take place. They are abusing it and will continue to.