You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
OH WAIT! I get it
OH WAIT! No you don't. The Heritage Foundation is not a government, and has never implemented any legislation. "Born from liberals" means "legislation written by Democrats". "Implemented by liberals" means "passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support."
There is plenty of other evidence supporting this conclusion - it is hardly just his "bombing" policies
Sure. And people wishing to paint him as a leftist can convince themselves they see evidence in support of that, as well; see, for example, his stance on immigration reform and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin and Ferguson "situations".
Personally, I don't see him as a "leftist" or as a "righty"; he seems to lack the intestinal fortitude for either. I see him as more of an old-school political opportunist with a defective moral compass and a spine too week to stand up for what he claims to believe in, whatever that might be (see his evolution from "fierce advocate for gay rights" to "God's in the mix" to... well, it's not too clear where he stands on the issue right now).
As has been said before (and roundly ignored), they're not keeping you from bringing Glass into the theatre; they just want you to turn it off and put it away. Just like your cellphone.
Well, given that Obama is a centre-rightist I can't see that you have demonstrated any problem with the premise at all.
The problem with the premise is that it's based on the tried-and-true No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as in "no true leftie would bomb brown people." Obama may indeed be a center-rightist, but only someone preoccupied with ideological purity would reach that conclusion merely by observing his predilection for bombing brown people.
He didn't say he hated anyone; he said he had experience with being discriminated against based on appearance-based assumptions. You seem to be suggesting that a moderately successful person should be OK with being gouged. Pretty screwed up, if you see a difference between "he looks rich, let's rip him off (he can probably afford it)" and "he looks poor, let's spit on him (he's probably used to it)."
In before SJW brigade comes in demanding everyone involved apologized.
wow, you anti-SJW people really got your knickers in a bunch don't you. Leave it to America to came up with stirring anger against social justice, and use it pro-actively as a straw-man in any debate.
Hmm. That seemed shallow and not well-thought-out. The common usage of "SJW" is pejorative by definition. From Urban Dictionary:
"SJW: Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."
Do you honestly, truly believe that I care what those authoritarians think? There is no such single tribunal, and they are not always correct, and have been wrong many times (like with the example you just cited, thanks).
Thank you for the shining example of rationality. You are surely an exemplar member of civilized society; the polar opposite of a barbarian.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".
My wife and I have been together for ~40 years. When people ask us our secret, we say we're both too lazy to pack-up and leave.
Funny, but there's an element of truth there. The more time you have invested in a relationship (30 years here), the more likely you are to work through problems than to throw up your hands and call it quits. Divorce is messy, expensive, and exhausting, and rarely leaves a person where they want to be.
Just wondering how
1. The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced
and
2. How many people attended the wedding ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding
Would seem to be correlated. Normally the more you spend the more people you have attending the wedding ie
it costs more to have a wedding with 100 people than with 25.
So how can one lead to more stable marriages and one to less??
Simple. Get someone else (e.g., the bride's parents) to pay for the wedding. The results said, "The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced."
1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.
You financed a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. (It's all relative)
You're right on both counts - depreciating asset AND crazy. Like I said, I think 10% is still too high. The only saving grace (and it's a minor one) is that I put enough money down on both vehicles that even with depreciation, they've never been worth less than the amount owed.
That said, even without considering depreciation I think that a person of average means spending 1/3 of their income on a car payment is probably lacking in prioritization skills.
Indeed it is. However, that's still a very poor method of transmission. Just getting infected fluids on your skin isn't enough for transmission to take place. The fluid has to enter a cut, abrasion, or mucous membrane.
Or your eyes. Good thing no one ever rubs their eyes, huh?
Then making it a point to shake hands with a lot of people in multiple areas.
That's fine. You won't catch ebola just by shaking their hand. You have to come into contact with their bodily fluids.
Depends. Are their hands clammy? Perspiration is a bodily fluid. Do they have any small cuts on their hands? Blood is a bodily fluid. Do they have a runny nose that they rub with their fingers? Mucous is a bodily fluid. Do they wash their hands after trips to the toilet? Urine is a bodily fluid. Do they rub their eyes? Tears are a bodily fluid. Note that a "suicide ebola patient" is not going to go out of their way to take minor precautions when his whole point is to spread the disease.
What is the amount of trade and other commerce from Africa VS Asia? Do we do 40 billion worth of business with the 3 west African countries in a year? 10 years? 100 years?
Just because they've got no money doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
I don't think he's saying they don't deserve to live. I think he's saying that travel restrictions on West Africa would not result in anywhere near the cost seen with travel and trade restrictions on Asia.
You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.
Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year.
Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.
1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.
Good money management does not mean figuring out a way squeak by while squandering your family income on something you don't actually need.
I think the right to personhood should be given to anyone who of their own volition can claim the right. And yes, that also means taking it away from many who have it today.
Including corporations.
Also including labor unions, non-profit organizations, political action committees... anything that isn't an individual human being. And depending what "of their own volition" really means, you'd probably have to eliminate a lot of individuals as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
OH WAIT! I get it
OH WAIT! No you don't. The Heritage Foundation is not a government, and has never implemented any legislation. "Born from liberals" means "legislation written by Democrats". "Implemented by liberals" means "passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support."
when has Asian been oppressed in U.S.
Suggest you research the origins of the phrase "Chinaman's chance in hell."
There is plenty of other evidence supporting this conclusion - it is hardly just his "bombing" policies
Sure. And people wishing to paint him as a leftist can convince themselves they see evidence in support of that, as well; see, for example, his stance on immigration reform and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin and Ferguson "situations".
Personally, I don't see him as a "leftist" or as a "righty"; he seems to lack the intestinal fortitude for either. I see him as more of an old-school political opportunist with a defective moral compass and a spine too week to stand up for what he claims to believe in, whatever that might be (see his evolution from "fierce advocate for gay rights" to "God's in the mix" to ... well, it's not too clear where he stands on the issue right now).
As has been said before (and roundly ignored), they're not keeping you from bringing Glass into the theatre; they just want you to turn it off and put it away. Just like your cellphone.
Well, given that Obama is a centre-rightist I can't see that you have demonstrated any problem with the premise at all.
The problem with the premise is that it's based on the tried-and-true No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as in "no true leftie would bomb brown people." Obama may indeed be a center-rightist, but only someone preoccupied with ideological purity would reach that conclusion merely by observing his predilection for bombing brown people.
Premise: Only righties bomb brown people.
Observation: Obama bombs brown people.
Conclusion: Obama is a rightie.
...or maybe there's a flaw in the Premise.
Oh, I understand his usage. But considering the person who brought the word to national attention, he got the state wrong.
you should ask them if they refudiate their party platform.
If you want to pass yourself off as a critical thinker, you probably shouldn't use refudiate in your sentences.
He didn't say he hated anyone; he said he had experience with being discriminated against based on appearance-based assumptions. You seem to be suggesting that a moderately successful person should be OK with being gouged. Pretty screwed up, if you see a difference between "he looks rich, let's rip him off (he can probably afford it)" and "he looks poor, let's spit on him (he's probably used to it)."
Where is this "box" everyone's always talking about, and what does it look like?
If you look around yourself carefully, you should be able to make out the inside surfaces of the box.
In before SJW brigade comes in demanding everyone involved apologized.
wow, you anti-SJW people really got your knickers in a bunch don't you. Leave it to America to came up with stirring anger against social justice, and use it pro-actively as a straw-man in any debate.
Hmm. That seemed shallow and not well-thought-out. The common usage of "SJW" is pejorative by definition. From Urban Dictionary:
"SJW: Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."
Not according to the Supreme Court
Do you honestly, truly believe that I care what those authoritarians think? There is no such single tribunal, and they are not always correct, and have been wrong many times (like with the example you just cited, thanks).
Thank you for the shining example of rationality. You are surely an exemplar member of civilized society; the polar opposite of a barbarian.
Then you're not exactly a rational being; you're just a barbarian.
Not according to the Supreme Court:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".
Lack of access to the First Lady's workout schedule is not what the people complaining about lack of transparency are upset about.
Really? Your tablet won't fit in the seat-back pocket unless it's turned off?
My wife and I have been together for ~40 years. When people ask us our secret, we say we're both too lazy to pack-up and leave.
Funny, but there's an element of truth there. The more time you have invested in a relationship (30 years here), the more likely you are to work through problems than to throw up your hands and call it quits. Divorce is messy, expensive, and exhausting, and rarely leaves a person where they want to be.
Just wondering how 1. The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced and 2. How many people attended the wedding ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding
Would seem to be correlated. Normally the more you spend the more people you have attending the wedding ie it costs more to have a wedding with 100 people than with 25.
So how can one lead to more stable marriages and one to less??
Simple. Get someone else (e.g., the bride's parents) to pay for the wedding. The results said, "The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced."
1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.
You financed a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. (It's all relative)
You're right on both counts - depreciating asset AND crazy. Like I said, I think 10% is still too high. The only saving grace (and it's a minor one) is that I put enough money down on both vehicles that even with depreciation, they've never been worth less than the amount owed.
That said, even without considering depreciation I think that a person of average means spending 1/3 of their income on a car payment is probably lacking in prioritization skills.
Indeed it is. However, that's still a very poor method of transmission. Just getting infected fluids on your skin isn't enough for transmission to take place. The fluid has to enter a cut, abrasion, or mucous membrane.
Or your eyes. Good thing no one ever rubs their eyes, huh?
Then making it a point to shake hands with a lot of people in multiple areas.
That's fine. You won't catch ebola just by shaking their hand. You have to come into contact with their bodily fluids.
Depends. Are their hands clammy? Perspiration is a bodily fluid. Do they have any small cuts on their hands? Blood is a bodily fluid. Do they have a runny nose that they rub with their fingers? Mucous is a bodily fluid. Do they wash their hands after trips to the toilet? Urine is a bodily fluid. Do they rub their eyes? Tears are a bodily fluid. Note that a "suicide ebola patient" is not going to go out of their way to take minor precautions when his whole point is to spread the disease.
What is the amount of trade and other commerce from Africa VS Asia? Do we do 40 billion worth of business with the 3 west African countries in a year? 10 years? 100 years?
Just because they've got no money doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
I don't think he's saying they don't deserve to live. I think he's saying that travel restrictions on West Africa would not result in anywhere near the cost seen with travel and trade restrictions on Asia.
Speaking as a Londoner, London has an underground system also known as the tube.
It has no subway or transit.
London has lots of things called subways. But they're subterranean pedestrian walkways, not train systems.
You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.
Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year.
Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.
1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.
Good money management does not mean figuring out a way squeak by while squandering your family income on something you don't actually need.
I think the right to personhood should be given to anyone who of their own volition can claim the right. And yes, that also means taking it away from many who have it today. Including corporations.
Also including labor unions, non-profit organizations, political action committees... anything that isn't an individual human being. And depending what "of their own volition" really means, you'd probably have to eliminate a lot of individuals as well.
If you think you don't have time to automate more jobs, but spend most of your time fixing problems caused by lack of automation, you are mistaken.
Obligatory xkcd.
And if you don't like that one, there's this.