It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!
Eye have a spelling chequer,
When I put the sentence "the code running the sight was a mess" in MS Word, it does not show up as spelling error.
How do you call someone that speaks two languages? Bilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks three languages? Trilingual.
How do you call someone that speaks one language? American.
Moral of the story: stop complaining about people who learned English as a second language and be happy that they did.
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...
I'd recommend you to include a link that explains why that particular case was dismissed (spoiler: the judge basically said: this is free speech).
There was no "TEA party" before 2008, period. Really, man up and admit that you were completely wrong.
At least I provide a reference to support my arguments. I suggest you take my example and do the same.
There was no Tea Party in 2006 for Bush to appease. The Tea Party movement came into existence with Obama's election. No matter how you try to spin it, your reference to the Tea Party is gratuitous and indefensible.
Well, let's see:
References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier
I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. "The Government" is currently in Democratic hands; they don't give a f*ck about annoying the Tea Party.
I think you have trouble reading. The law enacting this compliance tax was created in 2006. When Mr Bush was president. You know, the GOP one.
And this justifies a gratuitous dig at the Tea Party... why?
I'm not digging at the Tea Party. I'm asserting that the government is trying to keep them as a friend by introducing this obligation without calling it a tax.
So you're implying it would be better if the Tea Party didn't oppose NSA wiretapping and encouraged the government to raise additional taxes for the explicit purpose of violating our privacy? Or what?
What I'm implying is that the government first collects taxes from its citizens in order to provide "law enforcement" and "protection", and then taxes the internet access industry for exactly the same thing. Which of course, in the end, gets paid by the users.
In short, the government is collecting money twice from its own citizens, to illegally spy on the same citizens that it should be protecting against illegal activities.
So it basically comes down to an unfunded mandate probably passed down to the very customers the government is spying on.
No, this is basically the government outsourcing the cost of law enforcement to the private sector. Effectively, another form of taxing your local business. But since the TEA party doesn't like that, they called it something else.
I suggest that you're living in quite a bubble.
The only one living in a bubble is this commie idiot named Erin McElroy. According to her own resume she has done nothing to contribute to society (sorry, I don't call "art" a meaningful contribution: "Grids and Birds and Such", my ass).
I wonder if she gets up in the morning and pees acid instead of urine. Google spends their cash on helping those less fortunate and she's still not happy. If course not, in her Marxist views, making a profit is bad. Go back to Mother Russia, Erin.
Maybe if you put down the Ayn Rand and looked at the fragging world around you you might see that there are many societies between those two extremes and many of them generate far better outcomes for a majority of their citizens than the US does. BTW good work conflating equality of opportunity with 'equal', and making out Soviet Union is the only possible implementation and outcome for socialism. It's thinking like that has made, and continues to make, the USA the mostly ignorant redneck paradise it is today.
Maybe you should stop assuming that everyone here is an American citizen. I am from Europe and from mixed parents. My father was born in an eastern Europe country and my mother was born in a western European country. I have seen communism in former Yugoslavia and I have seen "western socialism" in The Netherlands. I moved from The Netherlands to the US in 2010. Let me indulge you in some of the differences that I've seen:
- homeless people: more than enough in Amsterdam, same story in San Jose.
- education: everything before college is public and for free in both countries;
- universities are slightly less expensive in The Netherlands with almost interest-free loans to pay for the lower tuition and living expenses;
- healthcare: everybody is forced by law to have healthcare insurance in The Netherlands. If you don't you pay a fine.
- taxes: 52% income tax and 21% sales tax in The Netherlands.
- social security: if you don't work, you'll still get approx $2000 monthly from the state. With the minimum wage being at the same level, many people choose not to work. My 73% tax on every Euro that I earned went straight to people who choose not to work.
Bottom line: I moved to the US to escape the Socialist State of a so-called free and democratic country.
Now try again to convince me how your Marxist views are good for the world.
Wow, if only there were some kind of organized system of, say, i don't know, governance for ensuring that under-represented members of our communities get equal access to economic resources? Like a set of written guidelines or maybe rules that all members of a community need to abide by...
So you want everyone to be equal? That has been tried, it was called the Soviet Union.
In a free market, some people have more than others. If you don't want that, you'll end up having a Socialist State. And that means that the government steals^W taxes everything you earn above a certain amount, for example like in France.
Most of the people who are considered "poor" (where poor is relative, if you still have a roof, food and clothing) have had the same opportunities as those who are considered working class or even rich. They all had an opportunity to go to school and get at least a high school diploma. Not everyone is Stanford or Harvard material, but everyone has a chance in this country. If you don't take that chance and become poor, it is your own fault and I don't need a government to take my hard-earned cash away and give it to you. I earned my Masters degree two weeks after 18 months of studying, and it cost me only 4k. Being poor is a choice for most people who are.
And then you have this commie complaining about how not giving free high-speed internet to those who refused to go to school and work is only increasing the income gap. What an idiot.
Until you can board a plane without a ticket, and without going through TSA
I did that quite recently. Drove up to the airport, got the keys to the airplane, walked out to the ramp, did a pre-flight check, got in the cockpit and started the engine. Did I mention it was a Cessna 172?
How did nobody ever think of suing before? It sounds so easy! Somebody should tell all those poor, unemployed, indebted people that if they just pony up $50k for a lawyer, they can maybe win a case in a few years.
Sounds to me like you feel that the legal system is broken. If the legal system is broken, fix the legal system. Don't introduce legislation that burdens innovative start-ups to govern something that could be perfectly self-governed using a working legal system.
If you're charging someone $15000 for a 10 week course, and promising jobs at companies "like Facebook and Google," you probably need to fall under some sort of regulation and compliance.
Not true. Look at what is happening at flight schools. Teens are often paying more than 100k to get a commercial pilot's license based on the promise that one day they will fly the big wide-bodies to trans-atlantic destinations. These schools are heavily regulated by the FAA and other bodies. However, they are still spitting out thousands of new pilots every year, who end up in a pay to fly situation to maintain currency on their licenses.
The government has no business in a contract between you and me. If I lie to you, you sue me, it is that simple. Worst case scenario you press fraud charges. What is happening here, is that the schools have the burden of proof to provide evidence to the government that they are legit.
Please proof that you have never committed murder.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
