Cherry picking much? gun related crime has been cut in half since the early 90s (with the assault weapons ban expiring) You take "gun deaths" and inflate that to include all justifiable or accidental or suicidal gun related death, and ignore all alcohol death except drunk drivng? I mean statistics are fun but you are pushing
I used to use a 3rd party itunes replacement for the ipod circa 2005. anapod explorer. It pretty much gave me the android (or at the time all other mp3 players) functionallity of drag and drop to load tracks on my ipod. I dont know if this software is still being developed or if apple put the ban hammer on them but anapod was great the one time i dealt with apple products past the 90s
has nothing to do with bribing. If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.
some people are easily bribed, and those people tend to get in politics. Ive always been of the mind that anyone who wants to be in politics, should be disqualified.
I think you misunderstood, who do you think reports to the NHTSA the information they use to post on the web for us to see? the dealerships. If the company owned all the dealerships, I think the argument could be made that they might be more willing to cover up and recall related issues.
While I dont agree that tesla should be stopped from running their own dealerships, I do understand both sides of the coin. where I live we have a saying "think local first" meaning we encourage our people to buy from local businesses owned by local residents. It is good for the community to support each other instead of for instance going to walmart. So I see where the auto dealers are coming from, they dont want the profits that are made in NC going to cali, (or detroit or asia if other dealers followed suit) And I cant blame them one bit.
anyone who says that "we give big oil XXX$" is saying that we dont own our money and the government owns us. if they didnt feel that way they would not say such insane things
the responsibly is simple. the FEDERAL (not state) government has no right to do 99% of what it does as per the constitution. that is my issue and what i assume the tea party issue is. The difference is that the left seems to think that the federal government should take care of everyone, I and the constitution disagree
well the company is DELL computers... if michael DELL wants to own his own company, i dont see how thats him being a dick... its his company, and its named after him....
I dont think he has any real interest in buying the company. I think he is trying to leverage a higher payout on his shares in the end. Cant blame him for wanting to maximize his cash but he is really acting like a dick
I dont know why you keep pointing out the GOP as if I care about them. frankly i want to cut federal spending by 1/2 and then some
if I make 100 bucks, and I get a credit to keep 90 instead of 50, the government didnt just give me 40 bucks, they just took 40 less then they might have (might not have)
How about we stop assuming that the government owns us, and start making them spend within their means just like they expect us to do.
what do you mean? lets look at tesla for example. they will be getting millions of dollars from the goverment, in the form of credits, which they will sell to mercedes and GM and ford.
so tesla gets paid while the other car companies continue to pollute, but to top it off now they have to pay to pollute, and in turn drive up the cost of our cars.
In the meantime, Tea Partiers here are tyring to take food out of the mouths of old women and children
It is statements like this that make it hard to have a debate with people like you. How is wanting to keep their own money so they can feed their own families trying to take the food out of old women and children? This fear mongering (wont someone think of the children!!) is getting tiring.
The difference is when that 4 billion is "given" to big carbon, its not taken out of our pockets and handed over to them. it is simply letting them keep more of their own money. Solynra since you used that as an example was given money that was taken from us. that is the difference between the 2.
Explain to me how allowing "big carbon" to keep their money that they made, is the same as taking my money through taxes that I paid and giving it to another company??
whats wrong with a carbon tax? simple. all it says is you can pollute more if you pay for it, it does nothing to actually end the pollution. Pollution continues, and a handfull of people get rich on pollution.
Didnt they tell us 350PPM was when doom and gloom would start?and also we are in a cooling period eventhough co2 is rising, plants "breath" co2 so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants.
we have corruption at all levels. but on the state level even with corruption it is easier to get things fixed. for example how many chicago politicians have been arrested over the years (or at least shamed to step down) In NY there are 8 officials under investigation right now. But if we look at the federal messups under obama and bush, very few if any heads ever roll.
so while you may be right in some ways, you forget about the other ways its easier to stop the corruption.
This doesnt seem to be racially motivated. It just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to kill more people and sell more drugs. wouldnt it make sense to profile them? Is it really crazy that the DEA is always targeting black gang members for being criminals?
Slashdot Mirror
How many Library of Congresses would that be?
Cherry picking much? gun related crime has been cut in half since the early 90s (with the assault weapons ban expiring) You take "gun deaths" and inflate that to include all justifiable or accidental or suicidal gun related death, and ignore all alcohol death except drunk drivng? I mean statistics are fun but you are pushing
I used to use a 3rd party itunes replacement for the ipod circa 2005. anapod explorer. It pretty much gave me the android (or at the time all other mp3 players) functionallity of drag and drop to load tracks on my ipod. I dont know if this software is still being developed or if apple put the ban hammer on them but anapod was great the one time i dealt with apple products past the 90s
has nothing to do with bribing. If I dnate to a campaign I donate a few hundred bucks. I think ive gotten a lapel pin from my donations. If I could bribe them with my votes pot would be legal.
some people are easily bribed, and those people tend to get in politics. Ive always been of the mind that anyone who wants to be in politics, should be disqualified.
I think you misunderstood, who do you think reports to the NHTSA the information they use to post on the web for us to see? the dealerships. If the company owned all the dealerships, I think the argument could be made that they might be more willing to cover up and recall related issues.
They fessed up to it, Id say thats enough proof.
I think the point is that the manufacturer would be less willing to come forward with the information to initiate a recall over a 3rd party.
The tesla is in the price range of the higher class cars, which would explain comparing them
While I dont agree that tesla should be stopped from running their own dealerships, I do understand both sides of the coin. where I live we have a saying "think local first" meaning we encourage our people to buy from local businesses owned by local residents. It is good for the community to support each other instead of for instance going to walmart. So I see where the auto dealers are coming from, they dont want the profits that are made in NC going to cali, (or detroit or asia if other dealers followed suit) And I cant blame them one bit.
why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in? why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??
anyone who says that "we give big oil XXX$" is saying that we dont own our money and the government owns us. if they didnt feel that way they would not say such insane things
the responsibly is simple. the FEDERAL (not state) government has no right to do 99% of what it does as per the constitution. that is my issue and what i assume the tea party issue is. The difference is that the left seems to think that the federal government should take care of everyone, I and the constitution disagree
well the company is DELL computers... if michael DELL wants to own his own company, i dont see how thats him being a dick... its his company, and its named after him....
really? does that mean you wouldnt? we all think hes a dick, but can we blame him? if i were in his shoes id sure as hell try and maximize my profits
I dont think he has any real interest in buying the company. I think he is trying to leverage a higher payout on his shares in the end. Cant blame him for wanting to maximize his cash but he is really acting like a dick
I dont know why you keep pointing out the GOP as if I care about them. frankly i want to cut federal spending by 1/2 and then some
if I make 100 bucks, and I get a credit to keep 90 instead of 50, the government didnt just give me 40 bucks, they just took 40 less then they might have (might not have)
How about we stop assuming that the government owns us, and start making them spend within their means just like they expect us to do.
what do you mean? lets look at tesla for example. they will be getting millions of dollars from the goverment, in the form of credits, which they will sell to mercedes and GM and ford.
so tesla gets paid while the other car companies continue to pollute, but to top it off now they have to pay to pollute, and in turn drive up the cost of our cars.
In the meantime, Tea Partiers here are tyring to take food out of the mouths of old women and children
It is statements like this that make it hard to have a debate with people like you. How is wanting to keep their own money so they can feed their own families trying to take the food out of old women and children? This fear mongering (wont someone think of the children!!) is getting tiring.
The difference is when that 4 billion is "given" to big carbon, its not taken out of our pockets and handed over to them. it is simply letting them keep more of their own money. Solynra since you used that as an example was given money that was taken from us. that is the difference between the 2.
Explain to me how allowing "big carbon" to keep their money that they made, is the same as taking my money through taxes that I paid and giving it to another company??
whats wrong with a carbon tax? simple. all it says is you can pollute more if you pay for it, it does nothing to actually end the pollution. Pollution continues, and a handfull of people get rich on pollution.
this is slashdot, you mean you expected me to RTFA?
Didnt they tell us 350PPM was when doom and gloom would start?and also we are in a cooling period eventhough co2 is rising, plants "breath" co2 so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants.
I mean if we just outlaw cell phones, people will stop getting robbed for their cell phones! violent crime will drop!! Genius!!!
we have corruption at all levels. but on the state level even with corruption it is easier to get things fixed. for example how many chicago politicians have been arrested over the years (or at least shamed to step down) In NY there are 8 officials under investigation right now. But if we look at the federal messups under obama and bush, very few if any heads ever roll.
so while you may be right in some ways, you forget about the other ways its easier to stop the corruption.
This doesnt seem to be racially motivated. It just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to kill more people and sell more drugs. wouldnt it make sense to profile them? Is it really crazy that the DEA is always targeting black gang members for being criminals?
see how that works??