"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid you have testicular cancer."
It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it.
Link to Original Source
This is ABSURD! He's being singled out because the federal government has granted blanket immunity to the big financial firms and their employees. I guess he didn't bribe the right politicians and didn't provide enough job offers to federal bureaucrats.
Yes, placing orders that you never intend to execute is technically illegal, but the big financial firms that engage in HFT do this crap every f***ing day! Pick a random trading day in the last year and subpoena the order history of a big trading firm. I guarantee that there will be thousands of orders submitted and canceled in milliseconds. Orders which the firm obviously had zero intention of ever executing. Exactly the sort of activity they are calling "criminal" in this one particular case. The U.S. government is a monstrosity. Arbitrary enforcement of the law is a hideous injustice and it's standard procedure in government.
If I was a senator I'd be grilling the AG nominee about this selective enforcement BS.
Adderall is hardly a weaker version of meth even though it is classified as an amphetamine. Cough and cold tablets, specifically nasal decongestants are also amphetamines but people don't turn into toothless zombies from taking them.
I don't think any libertarian geeks believe for one moment that using bitcoin is really "sticking it to the man" in terms of having a significant effect. If it was, the banking cartel and its government dogs would have made it illegal already.
No, it's more like being environmentally responsible by minimizing your own waste and energy usage. Your marginal contribution means nothing, but if your behavior was universalized, it would have an effect.
The current monetary system is a rigged game.
"The only way to win is not to play"
".the right to
Good thinking. The judge needs to declare them "mentally defective"(by human standards) so that they get added to the NICS database and will be denied firearms purchase.
The U.S. federal government will indefinitely detain or even assassinate a U.S. citizen accused of beign a "terrorist" without so much as a criminal indictment. Obviously that's depriving them of habeus corpus and other Constitutional Rights.
This is deemed legal while a court decides to extend those rights to a pair of chimps?
Consider the implications. The government points a finger at you and says "terrorist!" without presenting a single shred of evidence and your life is suddenly worth less than that of a chimp?
The definitions of particular words get a little murky when people appropriate the terms for a political ideology:
Yes, "progress" in terms of advancing the "progressive" political agenda is a very bad thing. Contemporary "progressivism" is just reformulated communist nonsense.
I'm always trying to get leftists, socialists, communists and other statists to specify exactly what they mean by "rich". Tax the Rich! Make the rich pay their fair share! etc. etc.
You really think a $109k annual salary makes you "rich"? In Massachusetts no less? What do you think of these people that want to soak you even more for the crime of being "rich"?
Your Romneycare payment is $800/month? Is that just for yourself? Plus 49-freakin-percent taxes? With that and the gun laws, there's no way I'd live there.
"IF" states in this country are still going to use the death penalty, they should at least give the condemned a choice. The degree to which governments have gone to sanitize execution bespeaks the embarrassing nature of the whole operation. Rather than doing it quickly, loudly and publicly, they do it in some dark secluded basement with an injection as if they're trying to obscure the fact that they are killing someone.
I don't anticipate being in this position, but I'd definitely take a firing squad to being poisoned and/or asphyxiated.
If the government is willing to execute people and call it "justice", then they should do it out in the open and/or broadcast it on TV for all the world to see. Poisons and gases are, IMO, much more barbaric to the condemned than the old methods. Those methods are not more "humane", they merely spare the authorities from having to clean up the mess associated with their deeds.
"For historical reasons the best solution to racial problems in society is mixing."
What historical reasons are those? What do you mean by "problem"? What data do you have to support the conclusion that "mixing" is the best solution to that "problem"?
I've never seen tangible evidence to indicate that this society's obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is justified or that implementing public policy to achieve it yields net positive results.
Yes, you have to prevent them from oxidizing somehow. Dumping them in water or burying them raises a lot of questions though. Would the operation of cutting them down and either digging deep holes to bury them or transporting them to the ocean to be weighted down and dumped be carbon negative? The market need for building materials is presumably being filled with current operations, so I don't think you could store much additional carbon that way. Many logging operations also re-plant.
I wonder if something like hemp wouldn't suck up more carbon than trees and be easier to sequester?
How are we going to implement the "one child per family" option in the places where the population is growing the fastest? Westerners have been trying and failing to teach denizens of the 3rd world to use condoms just to control the spread of disease! These places would be unable to implement or enforce such a policy and you know that any proposal to force population control on the third world, say by putting contraceptives in water supplies, would be roundly criticized as 'racism' and 'eugenics'.
We could at least limit environmental destruction of North America and Europe by cutting off immigration. You wouldn't need to impose child limits on Europeans, USAians and Canadians because they aren't even procreating at replacement levels. As we know however, anti-immigration policies bring out the same whines about 'racism!'
I think peak oil is our best chance at population control. Petroleum scarcity will limit food production, drive up prices and lead to starvation and war. A new world war or nuclear war might be nature's way of population control. I also keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before the emergence of a mutated strain of avian flu that can pass from person to person.
I can see him cutting his own pay as a publicity stunt because cutting expense would go straight into profits which he would benefit from due to his ownership stake.
However, he didn't have to give the rest of his employees an average raise of $22,000! Do you really think their increased happiness is going to increase their average productivity to the extent that it generates an additional $2M in profits?
I don't see how you can dismiss this as simple "self interest". Most employees would be psyched for a one time bonus of $22,000, but an annual salary increase of $22,000? I think that's pure generosity on his part.
The average salary is already $48,000, so you only need to multiply 121 by the $22,000 increase. He's also reducing his own salary by about 900,000.
$2.2M - 121x$22k + $900k =~ $438k
Still in the black if the profit estimate holds true.