Sure, I'll grant you that he is wrong. An LLC does offer some of the same protections that an Incorporation does. However, being the pedantic asshole that I am, I am simply pointing out that you told him to check out the words that make the acronym - but you yourself are confused. They spell out Limited Liabiltiy Company, NOT Corporation.
You might want to take your own advice. LLC != Inc. Though, granted, the reasons for setting up either one are largely the same, but they are certainly not the same thing.
Did you not read the post, or are you trying to be willfully blind to protect your bias? The repercussions of the decision to invade Iraq are indisputable, but you are sorely mistaken in your placement of blame solely upon the Bush administration. The Democrats can't have it both ways - you can't argue for force and then call foul play when someone puts action to your words, which is exactly what they have done. The blame for this resides with Washington, et al.
This is like the third or fourth time I've seen this phrase in this thread. Am I the only one who this doesn't make sense to? If the OS on its own costs $29, what on earth gives you the idea that you're getting it for free when you pay at minimum $1,200 for a laptop? You're paying for the hardware as well as the software.
Sure, it doesn't cost you any effort to go download and install it, but let's not kid ourselves here...
I think a contributing factor to this is the fact that you don't have a choice. You can't go with Verizon and get the iPhone with the faster processor.
I would be hesitant to leave a place where I was settled, particularly if the value of my current real estate was skyrocketing, regardless of my taxes going up (because it either washes, or I'm still making more if I stay in my current investment despite them). On the same note, I would be hesitant to move into such an area because it would be a dumb investment to buy real estate when it's high, and add to that the fact that taxes are being raised. I don't see why you're surprised that conservatists would use that study to argue this point...
Wow... I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You can't run OSX on a PC, because the software (OSX) is closed. You can run Windows/Linux on a Mac because the software (Windows/Linux) is open.
Actually, the ideal free market response to this would be for users to find a different ISP. Granted, there aren't many options to choose from, but there are options, and if people would go to them (despite having to take a cut in speed), then we'd see these companies sing a different tune. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, and it is pretty much incapable of harboring an ideal free market.
Then we get the government involved... Well, they can be just as bad as these cuthroat companies, and there's no competition to go to to "vote with your dollars".
I'm curious; I haven't heard of any events where Tea Party people have been vindictive, or where they've bullied anyone, especially because of their vote... What are you basing your fear of them on other than the fact that they're passionate about what they believe in?
Most Christians are pretty ignorant as to what the bible actually says, so let me offer what might be a different view than has been presented here before:
It would be pretty stupid for any Christian to say that the Earth is a meager 6000 years old, yet they do it anyway. However, there is pretty clear text that says that to God, time is of no consequence. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" and all that. Now, consider that in the "seven days" that he created the world, day and night didn't even exist until the 4th day (correct me if I got the "day" wrong), which means that the way that we're measuring this time is wrong. So, the entirety of the creation process that is documented in the Bible is not something that Christians should be using to try and disprove Evolution, because it makes no mention whatsoever about how the inhabitants of the planet were created, and why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?
Interesting way to look at it, there. But what rights did the government protect for that individual? I never saw their free speech being inhibited, I only saw them bear the reprecussions of how they chose to employ it.
I guess what I'm saying is this: if I talked badly about my employer in public, and they caught wind of it, I would expect them to reprimand me in some way. It's my right to say what I want, they can't inhibit that; they do have the right, however, to respond to it in whichever way they see fit.
Isn't that what happened to General McChrystal? Granted, I understand that this isn't a private sector issue, but the similatities are a little glaring...
I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.
You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".
Falcon
How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.
I'm a little curious as to why we're arguing about the ability to vote of any individual who, due to language barriers, is unable to understand what he or she is voting for in the first place.
I think that there are many more aspects to consider here.
I'm not the biggest fan of Sarah Palin, but your post is incredibly one-sided. Before the presidential election she was the governor with the highest approval ratings in the nation. Again, I'm not the biggest fan of hers, but do try to be a little less biased.
That's a ridiculous statement. Just "because some people are not smart with their finances, we should have the government step in and handle everybody's finances". It doesn't make sense, because not all consumers have the same needs.
Also, the price of incandescent bulbs is very low compared to the alternatives, and as many others have pointed out before, the alternatives have a much higher negative impact on the environment (for production alone; for the sake of this point, we won't consider disposal).
********, * ***** you're ********. The ********** between a ********* and a ******** is **** **** ********** than that.
[Some content redacted due to FOIA exemptions]
Please tell me I'm not the only one who sat for a couple of minutes to decypher what he actually said...
for one find it ridiculous that a single cell would enjoy the same rights as a real person with a personality, experiences, and so forth.
So you arbitrarily deny it any experiences? That's a bad example.
The problem we have in this debate is that regardless of state of mind, a human fetus is still human, and will never be anything but human. Calling it a clump of cells is easy enough, because a scab is a clump of cells, and why cares about tossing one of those out? However, the defining difference between a human embryo and a clump of cells is that, left to run it's course, a human enbryo will 100% of the time develop into a sentient human being, one that will be sentient and independent and garner experiences for itself. A clump of cells will not, ever.
I think Street View is awesome. I enjoy being able to see what the location actually looks like before I go there, or just "cruise" through places for curiosity's sake.
My objection to Street View, on the other hand, is simply this: It's an easily accessible archive of private property. Sure, it's taken from a public place, and any number of people could have taken that picture. They may have even uploaded it to their blog, thus giving it exposure on the internet. But google? I don't know...
I guess I don't like the prospect of just anyone being able to type in my address, and get a picture of my property, even from across the world. I would defend my neighbors right to take pictures of my property, or even that of a tourist... But Google is a corporation that,in this case, is selling my details for a profit.
For whatever reason, it just doesn't sit well with me. I think I'd be less opposed to it if the would go down main city streets, and not veer off into neighborhoods.
As for the Greeks- I think they take it a bit too far. I completely agree that if it's a public place, there should be no expectation of privacy, and people should be able to take pictures, video, audio, et al. to their hearts content.
Substantial? Maybe if I was referring to substance. No, I meant I could converse back and forth for quite some length of time.
I patronize you because you said "Good grief, it was a pen", which, by which you downplay it's significance except to some collector. I do see that you've taken a little time to look some stuff up about it since your last response, but you still downplay it. In that, I take you for a imbecile, due to the fact that you still acquaint a significant gift to a pile of DVDs. I suspect that makes you quite bad at giving thoughtful gifts.
My last paragraph points to when you suggested it was trivial.
The thought has occurred to me.
Alright, I'll cede that point to you. I can't make list of said politicians. I'd be hard pressed to find 5. Though, at least I have a standard that I hold my elected officials to. You seem perfectly satisfied with the status quo of our government, since you care less about what was done, and more about who did it.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Stating that there are biological differences between men and women.
2) Staring at said biological differences.
Sure, I'll grant you that he is wrong. An LLC does offer some of the same protections that an Incorporation does. However, being the pedantic asshole that I am, I am simply pointing out that you told him to check out the words that make the acronym - but you yourself are confused. They spell out Limited Liabiltiy Company, NOT Corporation.
You might want to take your own advice. LLC != Inc. Though, granted, the reasons for setting up either one are largely the same, but they are certainly not the same thing.
Did you not read the post, or are you trying to be willfully blind to protect your bias? The repercussions of the decision to invade Iraq are indisputable, but you are sorely mistaken in your placement of blame solely upon the Bush administration. The Democrats can't have it both ways - you can't argue for force and then call foul play when someone puts action to your words, which is exactly what they have done. The blame for this resides with Washington, et al.
..buy a new MacBook Air and get it for free.
This is like the third or fourth time I've seen this phrase in this thread. Am I the only one who this doesn't make sense to? If the OS on its own costs $29, what on earth gives you the idea that you're getting it for free when you pay at minimum $1,200 for a laptop? You're paying for the hardware as well as the software.
Sure, it doesn't cost you any effort to go download and install it, but let's not kid ourselves here...
/rant
I think a contributing factor to this is the fact that you don't have a choice. You can't go with Verizon and get the iPhone with the faster processor.
I would be hesitant to leave a place where I was settled, particularly if the value of my current real estate was skyrocketing, regardless of my taxes going up (because it either washes, or I'm still making more if I stay in my current investment despite them). On the same note, I would be hesitant to move into such an area because it would be a dumb investment to buy real estate when it's high, and add to that the fact that taxes are being raised. I don't see why you're surprised that conservatists would use that study to argue this point...
Wow... I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You can't run OSX on a PC, because the software (OSX) is closed. You can run Windows/Linux on a Mac because the software (Windows/Linux) is open.
Actually, the ideal free market response to this would be for users to find a different ISP. Granted, there aren't many options to choose from, but there are options, and if people would go to them (despite having to take a cut in speed), then we'd see these companies sing a different tune. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, and it is pretty much incapable of harboring an ideal free market.
Then we get the government involved... Well, they can be just as bad as these cuthroat companies, and there's no competition to go to to "vote with your dollars".
I'm curious; I haven't heard of any events where Tea Party people have been vindictive, or where they've bullied anyone, especially because of their vote... What are you basing your fear of them on other than the fact that they're passionate about what they believe in?
or rather, "unfounded" claims. Woops. :)
Please skip down to verse 14 before you make unbiased claims. My point about time reference stands.
Most Christians are pretty ignorant as to what the bible actually says, so let me offer what might be a different view than has been presented here before:
It would be pretty stupid for any Christian to say that the Earth is a meager 6000 years old, yet they do it anyway. However, there is pretty clear text that says that to God, time is of no consequence. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" and all that. Now, consider that in the "seven days" that he created the world, day and night didn't even exist until the 4th day (correct me if I got the "day" wrong), which means that the way that we're measuring this time is wrong. So, the entirety of the creation process that is documented in the Bible is not something that Christians should be using to try and disprove Evolution, because it makes no mention whatsoever about how the inhabitants of the planet were created, and why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?
Just consider it.
Interesting way to look at it, there. But what rights did the government protect for that individual? I never saw their free speech being inhibited, I only saw them bear the reprecussions of how they chose to employ it.
I guess what I'm saying is this: if I talked badly about my employer in public, and they caught wind of it, I would expect them to reprimand me in some way. It's my right to say what I want, they can't inhibit that; they do have the right, however, to respond to it in whichever way they see fit.
Isn't that what happened to General McChrystal? Granted, I understand that this isn't a private sector issue, but the similatities are a little glaring...
I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.
You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".
Falcon
How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.
I'm a little curious as to why we're arguing about the ability to vote of any individual who, due to language barriers, is unable to understand what he or she is voting for in the first place.
I think that there are many more aspects to consider here.
Wow... Nice moderating guys. Disagree != troll.
I'm not the biggest fan of Sarah Palin, but your post is incredibly one-sided. Before the presidential election she was the governor with the highest approval ratings in the nation. Again, I'm not the biggest fan of hers, but do try to be a little less biased.
That's a ridiculous statement. Just "because some people are not smart with their finances, we should have the government step in and handle everybody's finances". It doesn't make sense, because not all consumers have the same needs. Also, the price of incandescent bulbs is very low compared to the alternatives, and as many others have pointed out before, the alternatives have a much higher negative impact on the environment (for production alone; for the sake of this point, we won't consider disposal).
********, * ***** you're ********. The ********** between a ********* and a ******** is **** **** ********** than that.
[Some content redacted due to FOIA exemptions]
Please tell me I'm not the only one who sat for a couple of minutes to decypher what he actually said...
for one find it ridiculous that a single cell would enjoy the same rights as a real person with a personality, experiences, and so forth.
So you arbitrarily deny it any experiences? That's a bad example.
The problem we have in this debate is that regardless of state of mind, a human fetus is still human, and will never be anything but human. Calling it a clump of cells is easy enough, because a scab is a clump of cells, and why cares about tossing one of those out? However, the defining difference between a human embryo and a clump of cells is that, left to run it's course, a human enbryo will 100% of the time develop into a sentient human being, one that will be sentient and independent and garner experiences for itself. A clump of cells will not, ever.
Oddly enough, though, as a sentient adult, if you burn your hand you yank it back before you can mentally process what has just occurred.
Just sayin'...
don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.
You mean a selectively (read: In) bred Grue?
I think Street View is awesome. I enjoy being able to see what the location actually looks like before I go there, or just "cruise" through places for curiosity's sake.
My objection to Street View, on the other hand, is simply this: It's an easily accessible archive of private property. Sure, it's taken from a public place, and any number of people could have taken that picture. They may have even uploaded it to their blog, thus giving it exposure on the internet. But google? I don't know...
I guess I don't like the prospect of just anyone being able to type in my address, and get a picture of my property, even from across the world. I would defend my neighbors right to take pictures of my property, or even that of a tourist... But Google is a corporation that,in this case, is selling my details for a profit.
For whatever reason, it just doesn't sit well with me. I think I'd be less opposed to it if the would go down main city streets, and not veer off into neighborhoods.
As for the Greeks- I think they take it a bit too far. I completely agree that if it's a public place, there should be no expectation of privacy, and people should be able to take pictures, video, audio, et al. to their hearts content.
Substantial? Maybe if I was referring to substance. No, I meant I could converse back and forth for quite some length of time.
I patronize you because you said "Good grief, it was a pen", which, by which you downplay it's significance except to some collector. I do see that you've taken a little time to look some stuff up about it since your last response, but you still downplay it. In that, I take you for a imbecile, due to the fact that you still acquaint a significant gift to a pile of DVDs. I suspect that makes you quite bad at giving thoughtful gifts.
My last paragraph points to when you suggested it was trivial.
The thought has occurred to me.
Alright, I'll cede that point to you. I can't make list of said politicians. I'd be hard pressed to find 5. Though, at least I have a standard that I hold my elected officials to. You seem perfectly satisfied with the status quo of our government, since you care less about what was done, and more about who did it.