They were going to announce one designed especially for women, called the Lady MacBook, but there were some stains they couldn't remove from the material they had chosen for the case...
The very first line, that same page: "The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption." (Emphasis mine.) My original quote said "for the production", not "used up in the production." I use a computer for the production of my work. (And can, under some circumstances, deduct it now.) Your concept of the fair tax doesn't seem to match this other author's.
I've said it before... anyone who has these kinds of problems with the Fair Tax doesn't understand it. Businesses will have to pay taxes, too... the final purchase of anything will be taxed. Yes, doctors will be paying the Fair Tax on their medical supplies, and acocuntants will be paying the Fair Tax on their calculators.
I don't want to get into a big debate about this, but I forsee several problems. The main problem is that 23% is high enough to encourage a lot of tax dodging. Buy outside the country, do deals under the table, or claim lots of things as business expenses. (Eccles, Inc. needs to buy a car!) With the gov't so removed from the economy, how could it verify this sort of stuff?
Do we really need the government talking inventory of all of our possesions?
No, but that's as a practical issue more than a philosophical one, which was your initial objection. If it was technically possible for the gummint to accurately tax us, say, 3% of the value of our possessions every year, it might not be a bad tax system. It would be somewhat akin to insurance, where you pay more based on the value of the item being insured.
I'll agree, however, it's not practical as a general rule to tax most non-liquid assets. Generally only houses and occasionally cars, and even there, problems arise because assets can go up in assessed value but the owner may have no easy way to tap into that asset.
Really what you want in a tax system, aside from some sense of "fairness", is something that is simple to compute, and minimal in its impact on the taxpayers' actions (in terms of both time spent computing taxes, and actions take to minimize taxes). Our current system fails to match this, far too much work done computing and evading taxes.
I was writing of communism as "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and while the teen may debate whether they're actually getting that, from the POV of the parent it works that way. If you instead speak of communism as common ownership of the means of production, I'm not sure that's particularly relevant to the family.
It works on a small scale: the family. In other societies, on the extended family. On slightly larger scales, the Israeli kibbutz and other communes have been tried, with various degrees of success and adherence to principles.
Seems like the larger the group, the tougher it is to have it work. You have to care enough about the other group numbers to devote yourself to the needed tasks.
As a diehard Mac user, I've been mulling over buying a couple/few mini's myself for just this reason. I haven't been able to find anything remotly equivalent on the x86 side
Rumor has it this'll be solved by Apple at Macworld in early January.
Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you.
"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by [one's] own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'."(1033) Thus, Pope John Paul II said (see link below), "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."
Ya gotta remember, atheists already believe they are in this state.
By implication, he's admitted that the big companies would come up with these ideas independently. Thus they are not novel, and are obvious to a practitioner of the art. The idea of patents is you come up with something so clever, so original, that it advances the state of the art, and you publish it to give the world the benefit of your cleverness in exchange for patent rights. Does anyone here believe Microsoft read this patent?
What he should have done, is refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it wasn't relevant to Paula Jones' case, which it wasn't.
It wasn't a criminal trial, and thus fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination do not generally apply. "In a civil action, in order to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, the witness must be faced with a risk of incarceration that is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)" A judgement of relevance is up to the judge, and Judge Wright ruled the questions relevant initially.
Regardless, the questions never should have been asked. If I've ever compelled under the same circumstances to answer questions like Clinton was, I'll lie too. And if I ever have to vote on whether a president's lying under those circumstances makes him unfit for office, I'll vote no -- and it will be perfectly with my conscience.
To be perjury, it must be material to the case. If, as you claim, he could have claimed Fourth Amendment protection, then it must not have been relevant, and thus not perjury. And indeed, after the fact Judge Wright ruled that it was irrelevant. (Not that perjury is ever pursued in civil case regardless; the worst punishment typically is reserved for lawyers, who get disbarred. As I understand it, Clinton was.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or do the reverse, and make it easier. Once she's won it several times straight, it may hold her attention less.
"Two wands of wishing on the first level! What are the odds?"
I never really understood the whole region-lock thing anyway. It just seems to be 100% greed.
Exactly. So what about it don't you understand?
Glad you enjoyed. I wavered a bit on whether I needed the quote at the end, probably unnecessary with all the other refs flying around.
After my second or third mug, decaf starts to seem like a good idea...
They were going to announce one designed especially for women, called the Lady MacBook, but there were some stains they couldn't remove from the material they had chosen for the case...
"Out out, damned spot!"
Remember the Penguin credo: never bathe in hot oil and Bisquick!
The very first line, that same page: "The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption." (Emphasis mine.) My original quote said "for the production", not "used up in the production." I use a computer for the production of my work. (And can, under some circumstances, deduct it now.) Your concept of the fair tax doesn't seem to match this other author's.
I've said it before... anyone who has these kinds of problems with the Fair Tax doesn't understand it. Businesses will have to pay taxes, too... the final purchase of anything will be taxed. Yes, doctors will be paying the Fair Tax on their medical supplies, and acocuntants will be paying the Fair Tax on their calculators.
m l:
From http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.ht
"Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."
You were saying?
I don't want to get into a big debate about this, but I forsee several problems. The main problem is that 23% is high enough to encourage a lot of tax dodging. Buy outside the country, do deals under the table, or claim lots of things as business expenses. (Eccles, Inc. needs to buy a car!) With the gov't so removed from the economy, how could it verify this sort of stuff?
Do we really need the government talking inventory of all of our possesions?
No, but that's as a practical issue more than a philosophical one, which was your initial objection. If it was technically possible for the gummint to accurately tax us, say, 3% of the value of our possessions every year, it might not be a bad tax system. It would be somewhat akin to insurance, where you pay more based on the value of the item being insured.
I'll agree, however, it's not practical as a general rule to tax most non-liquid assets. Generally only houses and occasionally cars, and even there, problems arise because assets can go up in assessed value but the owner may have no easy way to tap into that asset.
Really what you want in a tax system, aside from some sense of "fairness", is something that is simple to compute, and minimal in its impact on the taxpayers' actions (in terms of both time spent computing taxes, and actions take to minimize taxes). Our current system fails to match this, far too much work done computing and evading taxes.
And I certainly was not advocating taxing wealth. That's a monstrously stupid idea.
Yes, that would never work. There will never, ever be a property tax.
You do realize the sarcasm meter is pretty much pegged here, don't you?
Because he's an old (relying on Wikipedia) person in Korea?
Relying on Wikipedia? Then he could be a 13 year old girl in western Montana.
I keed, I keed...
I was writing of communism as "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and while the teen may debate whether they're actually getting that, from the POV of the parent it works that way. If you instead speak of communism as common ownership of the means of production, I'm not sure that's particularly relevant to the family.
It's ok, I'm sure you can add grain effects with Photoshop!
It works on a small scale: the family. In other societies, on the extended family. On slightly larger scales, the Israeli kibbutz and other communes have been tried, with various degrees of success and adherence to principles.
Seems like the larger the group, the tougher it is to have it work. You have to care enough about the other group numbers to devote yourself to the needed tasks.
Calling them prostitutes seems a bit inappropriate. They were women sent specifically to marry Canadian men, with a provided dowry. See this.
As a diehard Mac user, I've been mulling over buying a couple/few mini's myself for just this reason. I haven't been able to find anything remotly equivalent on the x86 side
Rumor has it this'll be solved by Apple at Macworld in early January.
I have my credit card ready.
And you wonder why so many Americans seem so fond of the Second Amendment... (Not to mention the Fourth, of course.)
Indeed, too many Fundies confuse righteousness and self-righteousness...
Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you.
"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by [one's] own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'."(1033) Thus, Pope John Paul II said (see link below), "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."
Ya gotta remember, atheists already believe they are in this state.
It's worse than that.
By implication, he's admitted that the big companies would come up with these ideas independently. Thus they are not novel, and are obvious to a practitioner of the art. The idea of patents is you come up with something so clever, so original, that it advances the state of the art, and you publish it to give the world the benefit of your cleverness in exchange for patent rights. Does anyone here believe Microsoft read this patent?
That whooshing sound you hear is satire passing way over your head...
Read the second part again. Along the same lines, I don't eat bananas so monkeys won't fly out of my butt.
What he should have done, is refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it wasn't relevant to Paula Jones' case, which it wasn't.
It wasn't a criminal trial, and thus fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination do not generally apply. "In a civil action, in order to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, the witness must be faced with a risk of incarceration that is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)" A judgement of relevance is up to the judge, and Judge Wright ruled the questions relevant initially.
Regardless, the questions never should have been asked. If I've ever compelled under the same circumstances to answer questions like Clinton was, I'll lie too. And if I ever have to vote on whether a president's lying under those circumstances makes him unfit for office, I'll vote no -- and it will be perfectly with my conscience.
To be perjury, it must be material to the case. If, as you claim, he could have claimed Fourth Amendment protection, then it must not have been relevant, and thus not perjury. And indeed, after the fact Judge Wright ruled that it was irrelevant. (Not that perjury is ever pursued in civil case regardless; the worst punishment typically is reserved for lawyers, who get disbarred. As I understand it, Clinton was.)
Looking at things like USB with its mini version, it seems like you could have more than one type of connector for a given signaling spec.
Does anyone have an example of this sort of continually ongoing, pounding abuse of government to benefit so few?
Agricultural subsidies.
Oh, wait a moment, that's a different sort of continually ongoing, pounding abuse of government to benefit so few.
Publicly funded stadiums. 6,000 earmarked projects in the highway bill.
No, that's yet another sort of continually ongoing, pounding abuse of government to benefit so few.
The prescription drug benefit, which prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug prices.
Nope, also a different sort.
Digital Audio Tape and its SCMS. Ok, that's a lot closer.