Comment Re: Doesn't like military using their services (Score 1) 307
Non-profits are (usually) corporations. Nothing you said is sane.
Because the government can and will ignore any protest that doesn't interfere with establishment interests.
Pick up a fucking book and READ. You don't always have to resort to mayhem to achieve political objectives. You might want to look up a man named Ghandi. He had some interesting opinions.. And he forced an Empire to capitulate..
Sometimes, sure, violence might be needed.. But, if at all possible, you apply the minimum needed to obtain your goals and you direct it appropriately
You strike me as someone having the mentality of the morons-gone-wild during the L.A. "Rodney King" riots of 1992. In this case, a bunch of blacks who were upset (with more than enough justification) with how they were being abused / beaten / murdered by the Police. But rather than take the protest to the police, or even to their "white oppressors", these assholes burned down their own neighborhoods and stores and infrastructure. Real goddamn intelligent....
You also reek of submissiveness.
Oh really? Because if you try to burn my house down, to protest bureaucrats, I don't like it? There's a reason why nobody tried that shit in my neighborhood during the Black Lives Matter riots. Everyone out here, including the Liberals (for real), are armed to the teeth.
The governments and corporations were TOLD countless times. Nothing changed. See the consequences for manufacturing the opioid crisis. GO TELL THEM! Idiot.
You tell them, you fucking 'tard. Attempting to burn down my neighborhood isn't how you protest. PROTEST TO THEM. If you are a complete psycho, and feel the need, then at least burn their houses down. The fact I have to explain this is all the proof I need that you're are an idiot. What kind of a fucktard thinks burning down the houses of your fellow peasants is going to get the ruling class to do anything? Seriously.. How fucking stupid are you?
Legal protest - n. a "protest" that is approved by the ruling class and actually supports the current ruler.
You reek of idiocy.
Burning down your neighborhood to protest xyz thing (and yes, it fucking happens) is a form of protest that SOCIETY does not like. It has nothing to do with the ruling class, you smooth-brain clown. You don't like something the government is doing? GO TELL THEM. Protesting by rioting IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
How's the view from that tunnel vision? I suspect every time you open your mouth another person on Earth learns how stupid you are.
Americans object to protestors.
Americans are such a dumb, confused bunch.
You are a disingenuous asshat. You're also not very intelligent. Not liking a particular form of protest, such as those assholes who insist on blocking traffic, does not always equate to not liking protesters.
Our Constitution gives us the right to petition the government for a redress of our grievances. It doesn't say you have to be a fucktard about it. You want to protest the government? Awesome. They're all assclowns and I hope you make their day miserable. But why the fuck do you have to sit in the road and ruin my goddamn day? I'm not in the government. You see the difference?
You fucktard.
As long as we're comfortable enough, it's status quo even as the 1% gather more wealth and the environment becomes more hostile.
What 1%? You? If you make a six-digit income, you're in the global 1%. Or does that not count from your perspective?
Wouldn't the bigger question be about, you know, the rest of the two or three trillion, as opposed to a small investment that likely pays for itself very quickly if it loosens up any kind of economic growth whatsoever, as it seems like it would have to at a ratio of 7 private dollars for every public dollar spent?
Sure...If you want to totally ignore the fact that the $20 billion is 100% debt. That's kind of like a person who has a million dollars in credit card debt adding another $20,000 for an "investment".
We all know the only way to not be broke is to spend less than you take in.. The government should operate no differently. Spend less than revenue and build a fucking emergency fund... Then when shit hits the fan you don't have to dig yourself into a debt hole... Once you've got a solid surplus built up then, and only then, should you spend 100% of what comes in (but not 101%),
Google is one of the companies that built the tools that allow propaganda to be made much more efficiently, funny its own employees fell for it hook line and sinker.
In the age when males are beating females in sports by pretending to be females the structural inability to tell the truth, to provide negative feedback is not only hurting female sports. Musk will never land a star ship on the Moon or Mars or anything because he is a sharlatan and he hires former government officials who signed government checks, he is burning through billions of tax money with every flight, all of these star ship flights are pointless. Gaza residents and Hamas operatives not only indistinguishable, they share the same values. People protesting pro terrorism (against Israel) are wrong for the same reasons this male athlete is participating in female sports. USA denying help to Ukraine is literally murdering thousands of Ukrainians and promoting putinism, which is terrorism. USA federal reserve has created the inflation by monetizing government debt and so the economy is dying. The planet is going to become extremely hostile to people because we are still burning coal, oil and gas for power and heat production instead of building more nuclear power plants. There are more and more lies all over.
These Googlers are a sad reflection of the modern approach to reality - our game is ignorance, lies and denial and these protests are just a form of it.
Terrorists are very good at pushing their messages, this is clear today. ruZia, hamas, Iran, north korea even, apparently they are very effective at this entire psyops thing. Israel needs to eliminate the threat, AFAIC this can entirely mean whiping out the entire Gaza population also I hope they take out Iran's rocket and drone manufacturing capabilities, this would help both, Israel and Ukraine.
The difference is trivial. No one is getting married for the tiny tax break.
Someone else already explained why it is in the state's interest to encourage stable married families so I won't go into that.
Baloney. I personally know more than a few couples who finally got married for the tax breaks. Most of them had cohabitated for years and were tiring of paying higher taxes when the only thing left to do was "make it official". These couples were already married in all but name. Most of the marriages were simple civil ceremonies. Wham, bam, give us our paperwork... t
How else would the government encourage marriage? Billboards? It's so much more simple than that... Just wave some money at the people. At the very least you'll get the folks who only need a little push to "commit". Worst case scenario? You get more taxes out of the people who resist... Win / Win...
Almost. The largest single "social factor" that convicted felons, in the United States, share is being raised by a single mother. I'm not claiming that the majority, or even a large minority, of single mothers are raising felons. But, they are churning out felons in larger quantities than anybody else. And it's not all their fault. Fathers who abandon their children have to shoulder a majority of that blame.. Single fathers aren't producing felons at near the rate that single mothers do. That means that their mere presence in the family reduces the odds that the children in the family will end up in prison by a huge percentage. When they abandon their children they stack the deck against the kid's future.
Are you serious? You don't think there's any evidence that suggests that married couples are more stable financially, socially, and emotionally? Plus, they are generally happier than people who simply cohabitate.
There is a vested interest, in the stability of the state and society, to encourage marriage.
It is odd, to me, that so many people seem to not understand that some of our oldest institutions have survived the passage of time because they work. Marriage dates back at least 4,300 years.
There is also social & health value in promoting marriage. Most married couples do not cheat on each other. The highest value for infidelity I saw was 25%. That means that 3/4 aren't fucking around.. i.e. they lessen their exposure to STDs (some of which are still incurable). This is good for the overall physical health of our society. (Conversely - some of the articles I read suggest that up to 70% of cohabitating couples have experienced infidelity in the relationship)
Every research study I saw on the first page of Google results (query: are married couples happier than people who cohabitate - and the reverse to make sure I wasn't skewing the results - both searches gave basically the same results). By the way, married people have sex more often, on average, than single people or people who cohabitate.
For the record: I'm a conservative atheist who has never been married. So I don't think I necessarily have any biases that would tilt me one way or the other.. Observation has led me to believe that there is great value in the institution. I don't even think it's necessary to mix religion into the equation. The civil marriages I have observed seem to do as well as the religious based marriages I have seen. Research and polls appear to indicate that there is, absolutely, value to society in promoting the institution of marriage.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
