Good parenting is about knowing the tradeoffs and finding a solution that doesn't require you into compromising "compensating advantages" and getting "Upset" daughters (have them). TV was and is Optional. I chose to give up some conveniences for the sake of raising my kids better than the marketers wanted me to raise them.

At age two - three, there is NOTHING on TV worth getting a brat at the store. Read them a book. Play with them in the sandbox. Teach them YOUR values, one of mine was, "you're more important to me than plopping you in front of a TV for the next three hours".

OR, you know ... good parenting, not allowing them to watch TV except when appropriate

OR you know ... teaching your kids about how commercials work, trying to get them to buy useless toys and crappy "food" products.

Why did you allow your kids to be bombarded with commercials at an age where they couldn't cope?

Which line is "moronic" The line about "all taxes are regressive" ?

I do have evidence, you you care. Remember back in the 90's when Clinton instituted a "Luxury Tax" on things like Boats, Airplanes and super expensive cars? Wasn't supposed to impact anyone except the "super rich".

Well guess what, it nearly killed entire industries when the rich simply avoided the taxes, by not buying new "Luxury" items. Guess who it hurt? Yeah, those moronic workers who were laid off as demand for those items disappeared.

It was so disastrous that it was quickly repealed.

Here is why my premise is true, the rich can spend money to avoid paying taxes, the poor cannot. The poor ALWAYS get hit by taxes, even when they aren't targeted, taxes they cannot avoid. Of course, the socialists in the crowd always think that "progressive" taxes are good, because they "soak the rich" meanwhile, they simply ignore the unintended consequences (and costs) to those that cannot avoid taxes.

And remember Eric Garner? That was over "taxes", because who else cares about selling untaxed "loosies"? Why ONLY the government! (he is my proof that taxes are under threat of government guns, and chokeholds)

Personally, I am against fines for vehicle infractions, such as speeding.

Besides the obvious, the unintended consequences of speeding tickets having fines based on income, would be cops ONLY pulling over Expensive Luxury cars that were speeding, and junky cars (like mine) would escape justice, because people would assume "poor person, low fine".

If you want equality in justice, make the punishment community service.That way, you could send the poor person to clean the municipal golf course, and the rich person to serve in the soup kitchen ;)

IRS is (supposedly) governed by the 16th Amendment. So it is constitutional.

Besides, if you ask me, I would tell you that All taxes are regressive.

Time. Except that isn't equal to everyone. Some people live longer than others, and that is obviously unfair!

Envy is an ugly emotion. Why people tolerate it in politics and governance is beyond me.

Money doesn't equal speech. No Supreme court ever said that.

They said you couldn't restrict speech based on money. There is a difference between restricting, and allowing.

Everyone is allowed to speak the same. Money is just a tool to adjust reach of that speech (bullhorn)

how far will an m16 bullet drop at 500 yards

Best Answer I found ... 500 yds, 62 grain fmj, 47 inches

We have a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Socialistic viewpoints don't work here.

You don't do something unless you have plans to use it. I call bullshit.

Be Vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Asteroids!

It isn't good either. It is closer to bad than it is good.

That is, unless you're a mindless idiot searching for useless information. I've done side by side comparisons, and Google returns better and more complete results than Bing. Unless you're searching for coffee, in which case, Bing returns pretty pictures of coffee beans much more often than Google.

Go ahead, try it on anything more than a simple search. See what you find.

To be fair, the part about corporations being "people" is in the actual statute. The court simply held that it was constitutional (the statute). Want to change the statute, change congress. And good luck getting rid of the Republicrats that support the Corporate States of America

The problem with AGW, is that it isn't really proven, and is moving down the falsifiable road. The ONLY thing you can prove is increases in CO2, a small component in global climate. I could fix the whole CO2 thing easily by seeding the oceans with iron powder, that would increase O2 to dangerous levels. BTW, O2 is waste gas for most life, and highly corrosive to most organic material.