I would like to see these statistics start correcting for actual hours worked. Subtract sick leave, vacationa, and most importanly family medical leave. See how salaries at the 10 year mark are after correcting for those stats. Women do take more time off, largely due to pregnancy and children. Yes, men can take family leave when the wife has a kid. They generally don't.
Actually, they do hate democracy. It's just not the only reason they hate the US in particular. Claiming they don't hate our culture and everything about it is naive, as is claiming that they wouldn't despise us except for our military presence in the middle east. Without both issues, I think it's doubtful they would be carrying out an active campaign against us.
Roaming profiles aren't too bad, as long as you redirect the desktop and my documents folders to network storage somewhere instead of including them in the profile. At the very least the documents folder. Most users can be taught to keep the desktop mostly free.
This has it's own problems of course. It's not fun watching your server fill up with CD's which have been automatically ripped into the 'my music' folder by Windows Media Player. Or with updates from programs like Adobe Reader which don't seem to realize that 'local settings\application data' are there for a reason.
You're right. He should have said "Libertarians are directly opposed to coercion in all of it's forms.". Coercion and power are not the same thing, although that's still an over simplified statement. Although your first example of power is wrong, as Libertarians generally ARE opposed to the state having a monopoly on force used to protect life and property. They recognize a basic right to self defense.
I suspect that some of the state to state transfers would cost the blue states even more if they weren't around, it would just be harder to find. For instance, No interstate highway fund -> more expensive food. I've also never been sure how much of those funds include funds to indian tribes. Tribal lands aren't properly speaking state lands, even though they lie within our borders.
That link claims that the 2 most damaging stories against Obama got pushed more than 2 low damage storiest against McCain. Both candidates had a hell of a lot more negative information out there, and the link doesn't even discuss counts on positive stories. Their evidence doesn't prove what they claim it does.
Just for a reason their choices aren't really comparable, lets look at G. Gordon Liddy compared to Bill Ayers. Ayers was a domestic terrorist, Liddy wasn't. Liddy was punished, Ayers wasn't. Libby has regrets about his actions, and Ayers doesn't.
There is no actual evidence that Bush ever called the constitution just a "piece of paper". Every single cite resorts back to Capitol Hill Blue, which in turn relies on unnamed sources.
Because socialism inherently requires the initiation of coercive force to maintain it, and is therefore incompatible with equal rights. Big government or compassionate conservatism isn't any better. Small government conservatism is marginally better, but is only a little more successful at winning elections than the various strains of libertarianism are.
And yes, the initiation of coercive force is evil. Defensive force isn't. I don't attempt to control urban locations, but they sure as hell do their best to control me.
My memory is faulty it seems. I haven't filled out my tax by hand in a while, but I remembered a small change in income increasing my tax rate the last time I did so. Since it was the 1040EZ form at the time which didn't tell you how their numbers were generated unlike your linked document, and there was a clear discontinuity, I could see a way to gain $10 in income and lose more than that, and assumed it scaled. That's true on the chart you listed too, I just didn't remember how small the brackets were, and I can't really get upset about rounding it to fifty dollar increments.
Actually, in the particular case I remember, if I didn't round I ended up with 1 extra dollar which put me into the next bracket. I really preferred my state form which said if your income is in this range pay x% - Y amount. Being a math geek I checked to see the amount reduction exactly accounted for the rate change. A formula seemed easier to me than a table lookup.
That actually does happen though, because the federal income tax brackets are X% on all income, where x is dependent on what your total income is. It doesn't set rates for dollars from y to z. My state income tax is painstakingly set so that it's continous, but federal just isn't that way. The marginal tax rate is really quite jumpy (taxfoundation.org was down when writing this, so I had to find a blog that referenced it, sorry) when you factor in cutoffs for things like EIC.
You appear to have fallen for the Zero Sum economy fallacy. The planet has limited amounts of some resources at any given point in time, but it is not a closed system.
Let me clarify... his intent to increase their taxes. I accept as a given some level of business taxation, and didn't intend to imply otherwise. I don't know that's what WhiplashII was thinking of, but it seemed a likely reason.
Perhaps his intent to tax them and redistribute the wealth they've created or earned? Consider how he answered that plumber who ran his own business about redistribution.
Funnily enough, when I try and do a google search for that story, I stopped when the 10th link was your comment above. I can't really do a phrase search wihout more information. Cite it or it didn't happen.
If that's the way it's written, it seems like a bad idea to me. It conflicts with rules against using government computers for campaign planning. Any success or failure of a bill is potential campaign fodder, and if you are talking with someone about the balking individual's competitor for an upcoming spot, then it "could possibly be construed as related to". Part of the issue is that the law tries to draw hard lines through a reality that's a lot more murky.
As further development to my previous hypothetical example, if Sarah were sending an email to Todd about how X is an ass, I really don't think it is government business. That's the level of personal message I was thinking of. If you shift the target from todd to one of her friends at work, I don't think it changes the basic nature of it.
I can choose not to pay for private health insurance or private medical care and not get the care. With a tax based system, I pay regardless of whether i use the service or not.
Related to does not mean it was official business. For instance, any number of bills could have been fodder for campaign adds, she could be offering a personal opionion on some ass in the legislature or an appointed official who is balking. These are examples of things that are related to official business, but are not in fact official business themselves. All anyone has is subject lines. The only actual message content that has been revealed is clean. That doesn't mean she wasn't engaging in official business with her personal email account, merely that it is not proven.
Which email, in particular, clearly pertains to government business? Wikileaks doesn't have anything dammning. Although, maybe it depends on how you define 'pertains'. Subject lines can be very misleading. If there is a personal email about how some bill is progressing, and it's largely personal complaints about whoever is balking, is that government business or not?
That would depend on the context. If they were trying to set up an address for personal messages, and were worried about having to store those personal messages and how it might be accomplished, then no it wouldn't really indicated they were trying to skate around the system. The only quote i've seen about them worrying about the access laws leaves out the context, making it something of a rorshach test.
What I object to directly is "libertarianism guts the concept of the common good and declares selfishness supreme" and "there would be no common cause, only selfish isolated individuals looking after their own. " I consider myself largely libertarian, but nonetheless donate to charity and work for the benefit of other people. I do so voluntarily, and expect that many other people would do the same, but I don't think I have a right to compel them to do so with force. Libertarianism doesn't require a devotion to selfishness or that I keep myself isolate although it would allow me to do so if I chose. It arises from an unusual devotion to freedom as a concept. I believe objectivism may be closer to what you are thinking of, but I'm hesitant to agree with your classification even then.
Working for the benefit of the people around me is a good thing. I object only when someone robs me because they don't think I've been altruistic enough. I don't believe in doing evil in the name of good, and theft in the name of charity is still theft.
Is that better? I think it could use some editing.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to see these statistics start correcting for actual hours worked. Subtract sick leave, vacationa, and most importanly family medical leave. See how salaries at the 10 year mark are after correcting for those stats. Women do take more time off, largely due to pregnancy and children. Yes, men can take family leave when the wife has a kid. They generally don't.
Actually, they do hate democracy. It's just not the only reason they hate the US in particular. Claiming they don't hate our culture and everything about it is naive, as is claiming that they wouldn't despise us except for our military presence in the middle east. Without both issues, I think it's doubtful they would be carrying out an active campaign against us.
Roaming profiles aren't too bad, as long as you redirect the desktop and my documents folders to network storage somewhere instead of including them in the profile. At the very least the documents folder. Most users can be taught to keep the desktop mostly free.
This has it's own problems of course. It's not fun watching your server fill up with CD's which have been automatically ripped into the 'my music' folder by Windows Media Player. Or with updates from programs like Adobe Reader which don't seem to realize that 'local settings\application data' are there for a reason.
You're right. He should have said "Libertarians are directly opposed to coercion in all of it's forms.". Coercion and power are not the same thing, although that's still an over simplified statement. Although your first example of power is wrong, as Libertarians generally ARE opposed to the state having a monopoly on force used to protect life and property. They recognize a basic right to self defense.
I suspect that some of the state to state transfers would cost the blue states even more if they weren't around, it would just be harder to find. For instance, No interstate highway fund -> more expensive food. I've also never been sure how much of those funds include funds to indian tribes. Tribal lands aren't properly speaking state lands, even though they lie within our borders.
That link claims that the 2 most damaging stories against Obama got pushed more than 2 low damage storiest against McCain. Both candidates had a hell of a lot more negative information out there, and the link doesn't even discuss counts on positive stories. Their evidence doesn't prove what they claim it does.
Just for a reason their choices aren't really comparable, lets look at G. Gordon Liddy compared to Bill Ayers. Ayers was a domestic terrorist, Liddy wasn't. Liddy was punished, Ayers wasn't. Libby has regrets about his actions, and Ayers doesn't.
The US does in fact allow Dual Citzenship
There is no actual evidence that Bush ever called the constitution just a "piece of paper". Every single cite resorts back to Capitol Hill Blue, which in turn relies on unnamed sources.
It's really not fair to hang Obama (or McCain for that matter) with the actions of their subgroup of supporters who happen to be idiots.
Because socialism inherently requires the initiation of coercive force to maintain it, and is therefore incompatible with equal rights. Big government or compassionate conservatism isn't any better. Small government conservatism is marginally better, but is only a little more successful at winning elections than the various strains of libertarianism are.
And yes, the initiation of coercive force is evil. Defensive force isn't. I don't attempt to control urban locations, but they sure as hell do their best to control me.
I like to think of it as "There is no right to live, just a right to not be killed."
no, i believe a more accurate term would be religion supremacist. no race involved.
My memory is faulty it seems. I haven't filled out my tax by hand in a while, but I remembered a small change in income increasing my tax rate the last time I did so. Since it was the 1040EZ form at the time which didn't tell you how their numbers were generated unlike your linked document, and there was a clear discontinuity, I could see a way to gain $10 in income and lose more than that, and assumed it scaled. That's true on the chart you listed too, I just didn't remember how small the brackets were, and I can't really get upset about rounding it to fifty dollar increments.
Actually, in the particular case I remember, if I didn't round I ended up with 1 extra dollar which put me into the next bracket. I really preferred my state form which said if your income is in this range pay x% - Y amount. Being a math geek I checked to see the amount reduction exactly accounted for the rate change. A formula seemed easier to me than a table lookup.
That actually does happen though, because the federal income tax brackets are X% on all income, where x is dependent on what your total income is. It doesn't set rates for dollars from y to z. My state income tax is painstakingly set so that it's continous, but federal just isn't that way. The marginal tax rate is really quite jumpy (taxfoundation.org was down when writing this, so I had to find a blog that referenced it, sorry) when you factor in cutoffs for things like EIC.
You appear to have fallen for the Zero Sum economy fallacy. The planet has limited amounts of some resources at any given point in time, but it is not a closed system.
Let me clarify... his intent to increase their taxes. I accept as a given some level of business taxation, and didn't intend to imply otherwise. I don't know that's what WhiplashII was thinking of, but it seemed a likely reason.
Perhaps his intent to tax them and redistribute the wealth they've created or earned? Consider how he answered that plumber who ran his own business about redistribution.
Funnily enough, when I try and do a google search for that story, I stopped when the 10th link was your comment above. I can't really do a phrase search wihout more information. Cite it or it didn't happen.
If that's the way it's written, it seems like a bad idea to me. It conflicts with rules against using government computers for campaign planning. Any success or failure of a bill is potential campaign fodder, and if you are talking with someone about the balking individual's competitor for an upcoming spot, then it "could possibly be construed as related to". Part of the issue is that the law tries to draw hard lines through a reality that's a lot more murky.
As further development to my previous hypothetical example, if Sarah were sending an email to Todd about how X is an ass, I really don't think it is government business. That's the level of personal message I was thinking of. If you shift the target from todd to one of her friends at work, I don't think it changes the basic nature of it.
I can choose not to pay for private health insurance or private medical care and not get the care. With a tax based system, I pay regardless of whether i use the service or not.
Related to does not mean it was official business. For instance, any number of bills could have been fodder for campaign adds, she could be offering a personal opionion on some ass in the legislature or an appointed official who is balking. These are examples of things that are related to official business, but are not in fact official business themselves. All anyone has is subject lines. The only actual message content that has been revealed is clean. That doesn't mean she wasn't engaging in official business with her personal email account, merely that it is not proven.
Which email, in particular, clearly pertains to government business? Wikileaks doesn't have anything dammning. Although, maybe it depends on how you define 'pertains'. Subject lines can be very misleading. If there is a personal email about how some bill is progressing, and it's largely personal complaints about whoever is balking, is that government business or not?
That would depend on the context. If they were trying to set up an address for personal messages, and were worried about having to store those personal messages and how it might be accomplished, then no it wouldn't really indicated they were trying to skate around the system. The only quote i've seen about them worrying about the access laws leaves out the context, making it something of a rorshach test.
In fact, I had not been, but that's a fair point.
What I object to directly is "libertarianism guts the concept of the common good and declares selfishness supreme" and "there would be no common cause, only selfish isolated individuals looking after their own. " I consider myself largely libertarian, but nonetheless donate to charity and work for the benefit of other people. I do so voluntarily, and expect that many other people would do the same, but I don't think I have a right to compel them to do so with force. Libertarianism doesn't require a devotion to selfishness or that I keep myself isolate although it would allow me to do so if I chose. It arises from an unusual devotion to freedom as a concept. I believe objectivism may be closer to what you are thinking of, but I'm hesitant to agree with your classification even then.
Working for the benefit of the people around me is a good thing. I object only when someone robs me because they don't think I've been altruistic enough. I don't believe in doing evil in the name of good, and theft in the name of charity is still theft.
Is that better? I think it could use some editing.
keep burning those straw men.