I think the idea is that you'd tax those stock buys in your flat tax, thus evening things out once again (and as an side-effect, stabilizing the markets and destroying "day-trading" and "high frequency trading" in one swell foop. Those strategies are only effective if trades are conservative (in the force-law sense.))
If you tax "everything you buy the same" then it should affect everyone equally. It's only when you start making some things taxed and some things not-taxed that you have to deal with the "inequality" of a flat tax.
Close. It's part of the campaign itself: If you're an incumbent, it helps to appear to have done something during your term. But your constituents won't remember anything you did before march of the election year, if you're lucky. So, a cheap way to get cameral-cred is to be part of some kind of investigatory commission.
Like when the US congress thought it would be a good use of their time to interview every f'king baseball player to see if they'd ever used f'king steroids. Steroids. In sports. Considered important enough for f'king Congress to have weeks of hearings. Brilliant.
Anyway, stuff like this gets their name in the news for free which is even better than spending your hard-grifted campaign cash on advertising.
We've got two fucking parties of "moderates" already. Moderates are how we keep getting into this mess, because moderates don't care about any higher principle than "getting along" and "playing the game."
F the moderates. How about honest men (and women) instead.
Uh, dude, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, BP skates out of this one because of legislative mistakes the past (I'll bet that "emergency fund" looked like a mighty convenient raiding target...). The proper thing to do is to change things so that liability is properly apportioned in the future, not create a constitutional crisis that if popular enough could significantly erode fundamental protections.
Responsibility and liability are two different things, and worse, the Federal government already limited BP's liability through previous legislation.
But the Responsibility for protecting the *coast* rests ultimately, on whoever actually wants the coast to be protected. The residents, for sure, many of the rest of us, as well. In that regard, if certain youtube videos can be considered representative, the governments at all levels up to the federal have been as negligent as BP: It's been spewing for like a month now, how long does it take to ramp up production on a few hundred miles of thin plastic film??? Or hire and equip every fireboom capable vessel in the Atlantic basin?
Sadly, BP seems to be interested in not spending a whole lot of money, and the federal government is drooling over a gasoline tax hike.
You can't just say, "It's BP's fault, let them take care of it," even when it is BP's fault. Liability only tells you who pays for the mess, it doesn't limit who can/must act to mitigate it.
The sad thing is that I can't see how this changes without bullets. We've had 3rd parties ascend before, but usually because one of the "two" parties did something to fail miserably, and then got branched off of. The steady-state of "two" is returned to very quickly.
Uh, it would, in fact, run indefinitely! Assignment usually returns a value, sometimes the value assigned, and almost always something that evaluates to "true."
Applebee's isn't bad food. They're just not fine dining, and one of the less expensive kinda-boring chain restaurants. The only thing I can say they do really wrong is ribs, which for some reason, they cut across the bone to give you lots of sharp bony bits to bite into.
It's just that their fare is just that: ribs, hamburgers, poor cuts of meat they've cooked the hell out of for safety, fajitas, etc. Easy, cheap food. I'll take them over McDonald's if, say, I'm traveling and there's no other choice in the sleepy truck-stop town I have to pause in to avoid falling asleep on the road.
More to the point, they protect you from harassment by the government. Not from being terminated from at-will employment regardless of the employer.
Now, if the real reason is, as other posters have suggested, that they are looking to avoid her pension (which seems odd, a dispatcher's pension is a pittance compared to some of the pensions of say.. judges.., hardly worth going after one-at-a-time.), then it's quite a different matter.
The aforementioned brothers are a good bargain for consumers. Quite low initial cost, although the carts are slightly higher than some more expensive brands. However $50 for a cart that's good for five reams is a pretty good deal when you compare it to a typical inkjet printer that's only good for just under half a ream for $30....
That's if you're willing to accept monochrome, and you're not printing on envelopes: I haven't had much success with toner making it through mail-sorting machinery.
But you should be willing to accept monochrome, because color printing is a terrible deal for home use. They rate the cartridges at 5% coverage to be able to claim 200ish pages of output (assuming you print quickly enough that evaporation/cleaning cycle doesn't burn off a significant fraction of your supplies).
But photos and even presentation pages are rarely using that little ink, so if you do the math it's often more economical to get your presentation pages from the office supply store's color laser printers and your photos from the drug store. Plus, your photos will be either dye-sub or photographic positives, which is better for color fidelity and longevity.
Bush II was a compromise candidate just like you seem to think Obama was. How else do you think we got that gigantic Medicare Prescription Drug.. Thing.. that no one really wanted? Very few people voted for Bush. The "right" was mostly just voting for "not-gore" and "not-kerry."
If the Democrats had fielded serious candidates instead of ridiculous caricatures, things would've turned out differently. As it was, there were enough people voting "not-bush" (I'm not convinced many people voted "for" kerry or gore any more than the right voted "for" bush.) that it was still pretty close, which really says something about how crappy the candidates are and how trapped people are by the two-party political machine.
Come to think of it, if the Republicans had fielded a serious candidate instead of Maverick-Hillary, maybe things would've turned out differently then as well. Why vote for the guy who will "compromise" and do everything the Democrats want when you can just vote for an actual Democrat instead?
Look, if you think $12 a plate (e.g. Applebees) is high end, you're not going to the kind of restaurant where timing is critical (although applebees does still make an attempt to come out at the same time...). Not coincidentally, you're also not going to the kind of restaurant where people would consider taking a picture of the food.
I dunno. Healthy foods can taste *really* good, and look good too, with their vibrant colors. Unhealthy food only really tastes comfortable, and of course there's the slight bump from the fats and sugars that were once scanty in our pre-civilization diet.
It's also more expensive, though, which I think is the real problem. An overdone ground-beef patty, mayonnaise, some wilty lettuce and a slice of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with some fat-soaked potato slices and tomato & corn syrup preserves on the side is not only cheap to produce, but the ingredients store well for long periods unrefrigerated.
I'm not convinced "taxing it" is the answer either, as then this comfortable, unhealthy mix will be unavailable to the poor, but they won't magically be able to afford healthy food as a result...
Uh.. Just because it's not "dressed up" doesn't mean it's not ugly. Fancy restaurants might go overboard on the presentation, but the picture on wikipedia doesn't look any more unappetizing than any chili & sausage combo. I.e. heartburn on a plate, which is a bit of a mixed bag, really. Frankly, it's appearance is most reminiscent of your typical pot-luck dinner after you've walked through the buffet line.
Now, I'm sure Natto and Corn Smut are delicious, but I dare you to attempt to eat either one of them after just taking a look at them. "garbage plate" doesn't even make the list of unappetizing presentations.
Additional sources of revenue are only short-term solutions to government budget problems. Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.
I think the implication (*average* speed in excess of 90 on one trip) is that he's not slowing down for cops, because he doesn't need to.
Since "slowing down for cops" is a pretty big change in velocity (10mph is worse at the top than the bottom due to v^2...), I'd bet that it's also a significant cause of accidents, which isn't helped if there are people who don't follow the herd because they have a special relationship with the police.
My email provider, for one. That's tricky. My email provider is Google atm, so I pretty much have to trust a certificate signer if I want to use gmail over https.
But the other one is my bank. I'm totally cool with going to the branch office and picking up a biz-card CD, bar code, or whatever with the Bank's public key on it. Why should I have to trust a third party? Because my bank is lazy?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea is that you'd tax those stock buys in your flat tax, thus evening things out once again (and as an side-effect, stabilizing the markets and destroying "day-trading" and "high frequency trading" in one swell foop. Those strategies are only effective if trades are conservative (in the force-law sense.))
If you tax "everything you buy the same" then it should affect everyone equally. It's only when you start making some things taxed and some things not-taxed that you have to deal with the "inequality" of a flat tax.
Close. It's part of the campaign itself: If you're an incumbent, it helps to appear to have done something during your term. But your constituents won't remember anything you did before march of the election year, if you're lucky. So, a cheap way to get cameral-cred is to be part of some kind of investigatory commission.
Like when the US congress thought it would be a good use of their time to interview every f'king baseball player to see if they'd ever used f'king steroids. Steroids. In sports. Considered important enough for f'king Congress to have weeks of hearings. Brilliant.
Anyway, stuff like this gets their name in the news for free which is even better than spending your hard-grifted campaign cash on advertising.
You're being generous. His form-name is Newby, Hunter...
So, um..
Why can't the CDN's use the same system?
"all it does is {list of multiple items which are each much more useful than a traditional 'low-level' format}"
We've got two fucking parties of "moderates" already. Moderates are how we keep getting into this mess, because moderates don't care about any higher principle than "getting along" and "playing the game."
F the moderates. How about honest men (and women) instead.
Pretty sure you want Ed Harris for your underwater drilling problems...
Uh, dude, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, BP skates out of this one because of legislative mistakes the past (I'll bet that "emergency fund" looked like a mighty convenient raiding target...). The proper thing to do is to change things so that liability is properly apportioned in the future, not create a constitutional crisis that if popular enough could significantly erode fundamental protections.
Responsibility and liability are two different things, and worse, the Federal government already limited BP's liability through previous legislation.
But the Responsibility for protecting the *coast* rests ultimately, on whoever actually wants the coast to be protected. The residents, for sure, many of the rest of us, as well. In that regard, if certain youtube videos can be considered representative, the governments at all levels up to the federal have been as negligent as BP: It's been spewing for like a month now, how long does it take to ramp up production on a few hundred miles of thin plastic film??? Or hire and equip every fireboom capable vessel in the Atlantic basin?
Sadly, BP seems to be interested in not spending a whole lot of money, and the federal government is drooling over a gasoline tax hike.
You can't just say, "It's BP's fault, let them take care of it," even when it is BP's fault. Liability only tells you who pays for the mess, it doesn't limit who can/must act to mitigate it.
The sad thing is that I can't see how this changes without bullets. We've had 3rd parties ascend before, but usually because one of the "two" parties did something to fail miserably, and then got branched off of. The steady-state of "two" is returned to very quickly.
Uh, it would, in fact, run indefinitely! Assignment usually returns a value, sometimes the value assigned, and almost always something that evaluates to "true."
Applebee's isn't bad food. They're just not fine dining, and one of the less expensive kinda-boring chain restaurants. The only thing I can say they do really wrong is ribs, which for some reason, they cut across the bone to give you lots of sharp bony bits to bite into.
It's just that their fare is just that: ribs, hamburgers, poor cuts of meat they've cooked the hell out of for safety, fajitas, etc. Easy, cheap food. I'll take them over McDonald's if, say, I'm traveling and there's no other choice in the sleepy truck-stop town I have to pause in to avoid falling asleep on the road.
More to the point, they protect you from harassment by the government. Not from being terminated from at-will employment regardless of the employer.
Now, if the real reason is, as other posters have suggested, that they are looking to avoid her pension (which seems odd, a dispatcher's pension is a pittance compared to some of the pensions of say.. judges.., hardly worth going after one-at-a-time.), then it's quite a different matter.
Not everything flash is bad: http://www.homestarrunner.com/, although I suppose that site *could* theoretically be done with SVG...
The aforementioned brothers are a good bargain for consumers. Quite low initial cost, although the carts are slightly higher than some more expensive brands. However $50 for a cart that's good for five reams is a pretty good deal when you compare it to a typical inkjet printer that's only good for just under half a ream for $30....
That's if you're willing to accept monochrome, and you're not printing on envelopes: I haven't had much success with toner making it through mail-sorting machinery.
But you should be willing to accept monochrome, because color printing is a terrible deal for home use. They rate the cartridges at 5% coverage to be able to claim 200ish pages of output (assuming you print quickly enough that evaporation/cleaning cycle doesn't burn off a significant fraction of your supplies).
But photos and even presentation pages are rarely using that little ink, so if you do the math it's often more economical to get your presentation pages from the office supply store's color laser printers and your photos from the drug store. Plus, your photos will be either dye-sub or photographic positives, which is better for color fidelity and longevity.
You seem pretty knowledgeable about this climate thing. Can you give me a link to the data behind the famous Mann graph?
Bush light? Are you talking about Black-Hillary?
Bush II was a compromise candidate just like you seem to think Obama was. How else do you think we got that gigantic Medicare Prescription Drug.. Thing.. that no one really wanted? Very few people voted for Bush. The "right" was mostly just voting for "not-gore" and "not-kerry."
If the Democrats had fielded serious candidates instead of ridiculous caricatures, things would've turned out differently. As it was, there were enough people voting "not-bush" (I'm not convinced many people voted "for" kerry or gore any more than the right voted "for" bush.) that it was still pretty close, which really says something about how crappy the candidates are and how trapped people are by the two-party political machine.
Come to think of it, if the Republicans had fielded a serious candidate instead of Maverick-Hillary, maybe things would've turned out differently then as well. Why vote for the guy who will "compromise" and do everything the Democrats want when you can just vote for an actual Democrat instead?
Look, if you think $12 a plate (e.g. Applebees) is high end, you're not going to the kind of restaurant where timing is critical (although applebees does still make an attempt to come out at the same time...). Not coincidentally, you're also not going to the kind of restaurant where people would consider taking a picture of the food.
I dunno. Healthy foods can taste *really* good, and look good too, with their vibrant colors. Unhealthy food only really tastes comfortable, and of course there's the slight bump from the fats and sugars that were once scanty in our pre-civilization diet.
It's also more expensive, though, which I think is the real problem. An overdone ground-beef patty, mayonnaise, some wilty lettuce and a slice of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with some fat-soaked potato slices and tomato & corn syrup preserves on the side is not only cheap to produce, but the ingredients store well for long periods unrefrigerated.
I'm not convinced "taxing it" is the answer either, as then this comfortable, unhealthy mix will be unavailable to the poor, but they won't magically be able to afford healthy food as a result...
Uh.. Just because it's not "dressed up" doesn't mean it's not ugly. Fancy restaurants might go overboard on the presentation, but the picture on wikipedia doesn't look any more unappetizing than any chili & sausage combo. I.e. heartburn on a plate, which is a bit of a mixed bag, really. Frankly, it's appearance is most reminiscent of your typical pot-luck dinner after you've walked through the buffet line.
Now, I'm sure Natto and Corn Smut are delicious, but I dare you to attempt to eat either one of them after just taking a look at them. "garbage plate" doesn't even make the list of unappetizing presentations.
Additional sources of revenue are only short-term solutions to government budget problems. Governments will always expand to consume any additional revenue they acquire, and invariably will commit to long-term spending obligations when faced with temporary windfalls.
I dunno if I want to put my money in a bank I can't visit ever...
I think the implication (*average* speed in excess of 90 on one trip) is that he's not slowing down for cops, because he doesn't need to.
Since "slowing down for cops" is a pretty big change in velocity (10mph is worse at the top than the bottom due to v^2...), I'd bet that it's also a significant cause of accidents, which isn't helped if there are people who don't follow the herd because they have a special relationship with the police.
Who do I really need secure communications with?
My email provider, for one. That's tricky. My email provider is Google atm, so I pretty much have to trust a certificate signer if I want to use gmail over https.
But the other one is my bank. I'm totally cool with going to the branch office and picking up a biz-card CD, bar code, or whatever with the Bank's public key on it. Why should I have to trust a third party? Because my bank is lazy?
Tea Party'rs want lower taxes, less government regulation in general, and personal responsibility for your own health care destiny...
I think the "liberal" title should apply to the group that promotes... liberty, not the group trying to control it....