I don't have a problem with either concept. I just have a problem when the former starts telling me what to do with my own body or the latter grows to excessive amounts.
You really think it's a proper role for Government to tell you that you can't vaporize dried up pieces of tobacco and inhale the resulting vapors into your lungs? That is what this article is about after all, an organization that thinks the government should do exactly that.
However just because somebody can't see that you used a certain weapon does not mean that you should use it more frequently, however, sadly that is what happens - cops (threaten to) taser you when you argue with them in your car when they want to give you a ticket.
I don't know why the fact that a taser doesn't leave a mark is relevant. Has there been cases of people being tased and the cops denying it? The police usually seem to be quite willing to own up to the fact that they used these weapons. In the scenario of the traffic stop it would also be recorded on the dashboard cam.
Ever heard of a cop clubbing somebody because they didn't want to sign their ticket? Or pepper-spray them?
Yes. And the police officer was terminated. As should be a police officer who uses his taser/fists/firearm inappropriately. The issue isn't with the weapon, it's with the human being using it.
If that's your conclusion then we'll just have to deal with people poisoning themselves with various vices. The social-safety net should not come at the expense of my liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Learn to support your claims before making them. I've never seen any study that didn't come from the NIDA that claims pot is addictive. It can be habit-forming, but then, so can Slashdot, junk food, and WoW. If you have a scientific study from a neutral course that concluded that pot leads to physical dependence I'd love to see it.
Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.
So get rid of the nanny/welfare state that tries to take care of us from cradle to grave and force people to live with the consequences of their choices. Problem solved.
We know that rich people tend to have more complicated finances, which makes it easier for them to obfuscate their actual income than poor people.
Says who? Capital gains can't be easily obfuscated. Dividends can't be easily obfuscated. Both are reportable to the IRS and both flow into a bank account sooner or later.
Thus a simple tax would tend to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
On the other hand, moneyed interests have been pretty adroit at inserting favorable positions for themselves into the tax code, limiting their tax liability, the elimination of these loop-holes would tend to shift the tax burden from the poor to the rich.
Well, I guess I don't need to dispute your point when you did it for me:)
So I guess the moral of the story is that it's impossible to have a (fair) tax system that you can figure out with your paystub and a multiplication operation
Who gets to decide what's "fair"? I don't regard it as fair that 47% of the country pays no income tax whatsoever. They should have to pay something -- even if it's only 1% -- otherwise they have absolutely no incentive to care about what the Government is doing with our tax dollars.
My grandmother has owned the same set of pots, pans, and plates for thirty years, because she bought high quality American made equipment and didn't make up a reason to throw them away.
You can still buy high quality goods and not come up with reasons to throw them away.
People buy cheap because they aren't forced to realize the true costs of youth slavery's damage to Chinese society, damage to the Chinese environment, and a host of other costs that have been externalized through exploitation.
How do you plan on "forcing" people to realize that? From where I stand it's going to be a moot point in a few years anyway -- the Chinese people won't tolerate this forever. As someone said earlier, the United States and Britain went through a mirror image of this process when they industrialized. As the people became better educated and the economy grew they eventually demanded and received better working condictions. It wasn't a painless process by any means but drastic societal change rarely is.
Corporations will, obviously, find any way possible to avoid taxation. We the people do not need to let that happen. If we do then the tax burden (or lack thereof via burgeoning deficits) falls on us.
The tax burden falls on us anyway. What do you think a corporation does when it has to pay taxes? Print money or pass the costs along to it's consumers? I would be of the opinion that corporations shouldn't pay taxes at all. Corporate taxes are just a way for politicians to tax individuals without paying the political costs of doing so. "Your [favorite product] now costs more money." sounds a lot better than "Your income taxes went up."
We should instead help others up - by taxing imports and encouraging innovation and growth in _each_ country.
How do you help them up by taxing their exports and making it harder for them to reach your market? How do you encourage innovation if you make it hard for them to sell the results of said innovation? How do you encourage growth by placing artificial barriers in the way of commerce?
I'd like to believe that we could find a way to fund infrastructure projects without the Rube Goldberg machine that is the United States tax code. In the ideal world I would be able to figure out my taxes with nothing more than my year end paystub and a multiplication operation.
My point is that the merits (or lack thereof) of a use of force incident need to be based on the particulars of that incident, rather than knee-jerk "OMG, the cops tased [fill in the bank]!" headlines.
The only use of a taser on a six year old that I could find related to a suicidal kid that was threatening to cut herself with some broken glass. On the surface that seems like it could have been justifiable, though without being there in person it's impossible to say with any certainity. Thankfully the kid went home without injury, so it had a happy ending.
Are you implying that there is never going to be a scenario where it's appropriate to tase someone who is underage? It seems to me that the merits or lack thereof of using a taser are going to vary from situation to situation.
I'd hardly call opposition to protectionism a right or left wing talking point. It seems to be one of the few issues that unites large segments of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to breathe your secondhand smoke
Really? Somebody is forcing you to stay in my house while I smoke?
I don't have a problem with either concept. I just have a problem when the former starts telling me what to do with my own body or the latter grows to excessive amounts.
You really think it's a proper role for Government to tell you that you can't vaporize dried up pieces of tobacco and inhale the resulting vapors into your lungs? That is what this article is about after all, an organization that thinks the government should do exactly that.
Wrong. Drinking beer does not impact me. Thus, we don't outlaw liquor anymore.
Smoking cigarettes doesn't impact you either. What do you think of the ACA's position?
However just because somebody can't see that you used a certain weapon does not mean that you should use it more frequently, however, sadly that is what happens - cops (threaten to) taser you when you argue with them in your car when they want to give you a ticket.
I don't know why the fact that a taser doesn't leave a mark is relevant. Has there been cases of people being tased and the cops denying it? The police usually seem to be quite willing to own up to the fact that they used these weapons. In the scenario of the traffic stop it would also be recorded on the dashboard cam.
Ever heard of a cop clubbing somebody because they didn't want to sign their ticket? Or pepper-spray them?
Yes. And the police officer was terminated. As should be a police officer who uses his taser/fists/firearm inappropriately. The issue isn't with the weapon, it's with the human being using it.
If that's your conclusion then we'll just have to deal with people poisoning themselves with various vices. The social-safety net should not come at the expense of my liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I believe I asked for a citation that it's addictive not a citation that it can cause mental illness in those already predisposed to it.
Apparently you couldn't even be bothered to read the headline, let alone TFA. Let me help you out.....
Headline: American Lung Association Pushes For Ban On Electronic Cigarettes
Next time you want to make a wise ass comment about not understanding words, try to learn the difference between "ban" and "recommend"
Learn to support your claims before making them. I've never seen any study that didn't come from the NIDA that claims pot is addictive. It can be habit-forming, but then, so can Slashdot, junk food, and WoW. If you have a scientific study from a neutral course that concluded that pot leads to physical dependence I'd love to see it.
It is probably because it is owned by a Chinese company, AFAIK.
That's disappointing. How come the potheads can support American jobs but the tobacco heads have to support Chinese ones?
Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.
So get rid of the nanny/welfare state that tries to take care of us from cradle to grave and force people to live with the consequences of their choices. Problem solved.
Pot is definitely addictive.
Citation needed.
What is their agenda? (other than to mandate lung health, which many reasonable people who want to control their own bodies could criticize)
Fixed that for you.
We know that rich people tend to have more complicated finances, which makes it easier for them to obfuscate their actual income than poor people.
Says who? Capital gains can't be easily obfuscated. Dividends can't be easily obfuscated. Both are reportable to the IRS and both flow into a bank account sooner or later.
Thus a simple tax would tend to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
On the other hand, moneyed interests have been pretty adroit at inserting favorable positions for themselves into the tax code, limiting their tax liability, the elimination of these loop-holes would tend to shift the tax burden from the poor to the rich.
Well, I guess I don't need to dispute your point when you did it for me :)
So I guess the moral of the story is that it's impossible to have a (fair) tax system that you can figure out with your paystub and a multiplication operation
Who gets to decide what's "fair"? I don't regard it as fair that 47% of the country pays no income tax whatsoever. They should have to pay something -- even if it's only 1% -- otherwise they have absolutely no incentive to care about what the Government is doing with our tax dollars.
Normal murders don't shut down the national airspace for three days....
My grandmother has owned the same set of pots, pans, and plates for thirty years, because she bought high quality American made equipment and didn't make up a reason to throw them away.
You can still buy high quality goods and not come up with reasons to throw them away.
People buy cheap because they aren't forced to realize the true costs of youth slavery's damage to Chinese society, damage to the Chinese environment, and a host of other costs that have been externalized through exploitation.
How do you plan on "forcing" people to realize that? From where I stand it's going to be a moot point in a few years anyway -- the Chinese people won't tolerate this forever. As someone said earlier, the United States and Britain went through a mirror image of this process when they industrialized. As the people became better educated and the economy grew they eventually demanded and received better working condictions. It wasn't a painless process by any means but drastic societal change rarely is.
Corporations will, obviously, find any way possible to avoid taxation. We the people do not need to let that happen. If we do then the tax burden (or lack thereof via burgeoning deficits) falls on us.
The tax burden falls on us anyway. What do you think a corporation does when it has to pay taxes? Print money or pass the costs along to it's consumers? I would be of the opinion that corporations shouldn't pay taxes at all. Corporate taxes are just a way for politicians to tax individuals without paying the political costs of doing so. "Your [favorite product] now costs more money." sounds a lot better than "Your income taxes went up."
We should instead help others up - by taxing imports and encouraging innovation and growth in _each_ country.
How do you help them up by taxing their exports and making it harder for them to reach your market? How do you encourage innovation if you make it hard for them to sell the results of said innovation? How do you encourage growth by placing artificial barriers in the way of commerce?
Whoosh!
Your host charges you for DNS hits? That's absurd.
You realize that's about the worst possible way to manage your money, right?
How 'bout them roads you drove to work on today?
I'd like to believe that we could find a way to fund infrastructure projects without the Rube Goldberg machine that is the United States tax code. In the ideal world I would be able to figure out my taxes with nothing more than my year end paystub and a multiplication operation.
My point is that the merits (or lack thereof) of a use of force incident need to be based on the particulars of that incident, rather than knee-jerk "OMG, the cops tased [fill in the bank]!" headlines.
The only use of a taser on a six year old that I could find related to a suicidal kid that was threatening to cut herself with some broken glass. On the surface that seems like it could have been justifiable, though without being there in person it's impossible to say with any certainity. Thankfully the kid went home without injury, so it had a happy ending.
The "few seconds" times the amount of spam just one of the major spammers sends out in a month comes to easily an entire human lifetime.
So does the time we spend idling in traffic. Your point?
Actually, if you look at it purely in monetary terms, spam is probably a bigger problem in the United States than terrorism
Spam bankrupted an entire industry?
Are you implying that there is never going to be a scenario where it's appropriate to tase someone who is underage? It seems to me that the merits or lack thereof of using a taser are going to vary from situation to situation.
I'd hardly call opposition to protectionism a right or left wing talking point. It seems to be one of the few issues that unites large segments of the Democratic and Republican parties.