Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?
If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.
My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.
Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?
Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.
Good point. It was also a little surreal to have the SC rule that the mandate was, in effect, a tax, when the official position of the administration -- i.e., the ones pushing the law in the first place -- was that it was NOT a tax.
See here, for just one of many examples:
"The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. " -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
SuricouRaven -- what do you recommend as far as the best place to find instructions for doing this?
Is he right? I don't know. But whoever modded him "Troll" should be really fucking ashamed of themselves.
I'm not sure what you are asserting. If the motion was "We should tax every American a dollar a year, and give that money to Alaska Jack," then would I support it? Of course. Does that mean it would be good for the country? No.
You don't understand.
*I* was going to refer the the "fireman first" principle -- I just didn't think I needed to.
The fireman-first principle (Or Washington Monument syndrome) is a *conservative/libertarian* argument, not a progressive one. Notice how it is attributed to National Review? It basically states that when taxpayers express a wish to scale back the size or scope of government, politicians often fight to preserve it by threatening to cut, not areas that are wasteful or inessential, but essential or highly visible government services -- like firemen.
That this principle exists does not mean that National Review doesn't think the size or scope of government should be restrained. It doesn't mean "Oh well, politicians will threaten to cut the police force, so we should just keep feeding the beast." As even a moment's thought would make obvious, I would have thought.
1. As demonlapin points out, you don't understand how tax brackets work.
2. Tax experts have pointed out, literally hundreds of times, that the attacks against Romney's income tax rate were politically motivated sound-bites meant to outrage people like you, who don't understand how taxes work. Here are just a couple of links: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/01/19/media_promote_myths_about_romneys_15_99470.html
It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"
3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.
"Blindly "tightening the purse strings" leads to those parts of government that are good and useful to be sacrificed first, while the partisan and corrupt parts better defend themselves and their budgets. So, instead of a progressive nation of healthy, happy, nutritionally fed, employed, well educated citizens in a nation focused on freedom, scientific and technological advancement, we have become the secretive spymasters and bullies of the world, looking for the next war to line the pockets of the oligarchs, while the bigoted, ignorant masses fight from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find a job, until they die from easily preventable disease, if they survive the worst infant mortality rate of any first world nation."
There's no evidence for this, and a moment's thought will reveal that it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence. As the federal government has grown, it has steadily expanded its scope far beyond what the framers seem to have intended... and it's consumed more money to do so.
"The worst infant mortality" part just shows your bias. It's been shown time and time again that this claim is misleading. (In a nutshell, it's because the US counts nearly every pregnancy, even those where the fetus is for various reasons given very little chance of survival. Other countries "write off" these problematic pregnancies and births. This is how Cuba, for example, claims to have a lower IM rate that the US, which is preposterous given the level of care available there.)
"Instead of demanding that the money be taken away, we should be demanding that the places where the money is being mis-spent be stopped"
Exactly right. There's nothing mysterious here; these are not mutually exclusive qualities. The fact that the OP thinks they are suggests some confirmation bias on his part -- i.e., he is looking too hard for something to disagree with.
Funny -- my immediate reaction to this quote was not that it reflected the modern age, but that it was *timeless.* I could easily see John Adams or James Madison expressing nearly identical sentiments.
These are good questions, but see my two other comments in this thread.
I could care less about defending this girl, and I can certainly agree it was stupid to send out any tweet about race or AIDS that could in any way be misconstrued.
But that doesn't change the fact (I believe) that people ARE misconstruing it.
As I've noted, the tweet makes far more sense if you read it as sarcasm, and imagine the girl giving an eye-roll as she says it.
Again, one can still say it was stupid, especially for a PR professional. But while that would suggest that she (at least occasionally) has bad professional judgement, having poor judgement is much less of a sexy crime than being a racist.
(And note that, if you read the tweet as sarcasm, it would in fact suggest she is anti-racism, since she was *parodying* what she sees as racist ideas).