This would be an excellent day for Justice Clarence Thomas to continue his tradition of just doing whatever Justice Scalia does.
And I here I thought the people on the right were supposed to be the evil hate mongers wanting everyone that opposes them to die. My mistake.
Mighty dishonest of you to change the set to include the entire world, which completely skews the value of the dollar earned in comparison to the market.
Actually, it's pretty dishonest of you to not include the entire world. The entire world looks at the excesses that you own, that you consume and are disgusted. But, of course, in typical self-centered fashion, you point to someone else and say but look, they're worse!
Go ahead, live in your cocoon, isolated from 99% -- just like the 1% that you despise.
Einstein was loser. If he was so smart, why wasn't he rich?
boy, there are more great people than rich people.
Even before I read who wrote why wasn't he rich? my sarcasm detector translated it to an indictment of the system, not of Einstein. Then I read who wrote it and I know you missed Ratzo's sarcasm.
It's already too late: the class struggle is over. The One Percenters won. From now on it's a long slide towards misery and, ultimately, elimination for us the dispossessed masses.
How much a year do you make? If it's more than $US 32,400 then you are part of the 1%. Oh, you meant the other one percent. Typical. I can hear you now: Everyone else is a blood sucking parasite, but *I* earn my money.
you'll be able to write your tax return 'on the back of a postcard' are making promises that they cannot deliver on
1. How much did you make, including from barter:
2. Multiply line 1 by 0.20 and write that amount here:
3. Enter the amount withheld:
4. Subtract line 3 from line 2, this is how much you owe:
How many pages of regulations are required to cover barter?
Not to sound like a presidential candidate, but what difference does it make?
You can use the existing regulation defining barter and still get rid of tons of the tax code.
Your alternative proposal would scrap the rules, which means every business large and small would be finding new ways to barter efficiently.
Barter is considered income -- and is subject to the same income tax.
Regime change in Syria on one level, is exactly the right thing to do. The problem is that it creates complications based on how it is executed.
Looking at the recent track record, stating that regime change is the right thing to do requires extra-ordinary proof. Not just that it is required, but that there's any hope of turning the situation into anything but a human cesspit costing an incredible amount in terms of both treasure and blood.
Few argue, in 20/20 hindsight, that taking out Saddam was correct.
Everyone is mute on whether taking out Gaddfi was correct -- we're just lucky that we're not saturated with constant news of what a colossal ****-up Libya is now; otherwise people might actually have an opinion on that disaster which would be negative for a certain presidential candidate.
So, let's ignore lessons of recent history -- things that we should know from watching the nightly news over the last 15 years -- and make a simplistic statement that this time we'll do it right.
"It's not all pointless. The nutjobs need to be dealt with"
Sorry, but the 2nd Iraq "war" was utterly pointless. It cost lives and money for what - to remove one psychopath under bogus pretenses who at least held the region together, and allow him to be replaced with 10s of thousands of psychopaths who have created anarchy in the whole region and europe. Way to go USA!
This.
And not just Iraq. You would think that a person running for president would have learned that lesson from Iraq, but we have a person running who was actively involved in making the exact same mistake in Libya.
Is it still our policy to have regime change in Syria?
These people shouldn't have to learn from history -- these are recent events that they all lived through.
It's akin to, if not the same as the different degrees of murder...
Except with hate crimes, there are usually two charges: one for the the actual crime and a second for the thought (hate).
The reason we don't have Thoughtcrime is the outrage you get from various political parties/groups, not the fact that we don't actually have a mind reading device.
We do have thought crimes -- anytime someone is accused of a hate crime, it's because of what they were thinking.
That is why this this isn't going to go anywhere legally. It may have legs politically but there's no way she's going to be charged and convicted of mishandling classified information.
No. It doesn't have legs politically because if she wins, she won't have herself prosecuted. If she loses, presidents tend not to prosecute the outgoing opposition (with the hope that that those that replace them will give them the same quid pro quo).
Beside, Trump is running a false-flag operation. He wouldn't want one of his wedding guests tossed into prison.
No one was ever fired or demoted or paid a fine.
I have seen people fired for simple mistakes that did not result in disclosure. Perhaps where the spooks would hold security sweeps was an open secret container -- and therefore not as sever.
I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't be voting for her again.
Sure some might even be prosecuted, but those rules are focused not on the person that screws up, particularly if that person is otherwise executing due diligence
Ah, there's the rub. She wasn't performing due diligence. As soon as you know that you have classified information on your unclassified system, you are required to immediately disconnect it from the network and contact the facility security officer. You are not supposed to make additional copies. You are not to give them to your uncleared lawyer. You are not to have uncleared personnel peruse it looking for personal information to delete.
I voted for Hillary in 2008. I won't be voting for her again.
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
