Awesome, so now Biden gets to decide who's traffic goes first... I hope all your emails start with your professed love for the Democrats or its the 10kbps bucket for you.
Oh my, that is probably the best use of that quote I have seen in ages.
Why would we want them to get lasting things done? About the only thing that makes those that want to govern tolerable is that they are generally too stupid to get anything done. Nobody who wants to govern should ever be intrusted with any real power. The more they argue about worthless things they less they are able to hurt us.
Ah, so we should all be C-Sections to avoid your truly awesome prophetic abilities? Or not.
In reality for all quintiles of the income spectrum 30-40% of people stay in the same quintile as their parents. For the middle quintiles it appears to be a 20% chance to move to each of the adjacent quintiles. So, while there is a strong association between your parents income and what you will make your own hard work appears to be a huge factor. Better yet, in raw purchasing power approximately 80% of people will make more than their parents did (yep, even losing ground in % race usually still leaves you better off than your parents).
While nothing guarantees success you can (and many do) guarantee their mediocrity.
Meddlesome, myopic and melodramatic.
Yep, basically the same shtick with new words.
Free market... In education? In the united states? I have to ask what century you are from as there hasn't been anything even passing for a free market in education in my lifetime, my parent's lifetime or my grandparent's lifetime. Few things are controlled by the government with such glee as education.
Ok sorry your points are silly.
(a) Part of why the Jews were persecuted due to their un-due economic and political power.
(b) Additionally they were automatically suspect as they tended to cling to their communities and not intermingle (can you say 'bubble').
(c) Jewish hate was widespread and common in the 1920s (and for much of history).
That is not to say that the previous posts arguments were much better. In fact the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler really are closer to each other in cause and effect than they are to modern America. In fact if you were to read Mien Kampf you would find several places where Hitler talks about using the French Revolution as a model for 'social change'.
From what I have read starvation is really what lead to the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler. Fortunately deaths in the USA due to starvation are so rare that they figure anorexia contributes most of them. It takes energy to break social inertia and thought history it appears that flaming hate at a specific group is the easiest way to generate that energy.
As far as I can tell this is just (hopefully) the last vestiges of the 'down with The Man' mentality out on the wacky coast.
Sorry, but someone has to call BS so here we go.
First, presuming you are living in the 2000s and not a time traveler recent data suggests the average working woman makes 23% less than the average man. This DOES NOT try to control for any factors. When you control for factors even AAUW can only find at best a 7% difference. Some reports show the difference as low as 4.3%. Is there a detectable difference in pay between the sexes? Yes, but just barely. Obviously, as people have a hard time understanding these numbers, "Math is hard" is probably a real thing.
Second, the rest of your argument is not a complete lie so I have no problem with it. The argument, and studies, about how much is nature and how much is nurture have been going on for a really long time so there is probably substantial truth in both positions. That being said in the US the 'Tom Boy' description is a great example of how your 'freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture' is a bit over exaggerated. (As a side note did you know that pink used to be a masculine color it wasn't till the early 1900s that it was considered feminine).
And here are some things to read if you wish to educate yourself.
Chance to die in a car accident in a year (last 5 year average):
Lets say you come up with a magic technology that can reduce that to 0 deaths and in this ridiculous future the average life expectancy is 100 years. Presuming an even age distribution of deaths you should see about 1% of people die with an average of 50 years wasted. Lets presume that all of this is quality life and lets use the high end estimates on a value of a life ($100k/year). Each person saved should be worth on average about $5m. The average saved across the entire USA would be $50,000 per person per LIFETIME. Yep that would make it about $500 per year (again assuming 100 year average lives).
So, yes I can look at the numbers and put a price on safety. Given the difference between the cost of my used car and the cost of a new one is several multiples of this statistical savings I would have to say this is a suckers bet.
Most of the guys in my CS classes were ugly...
Problem isn't that they are sexist, the problem is that they are smart/engaged enough to notice and not socially "adjusted" enough to no longer say the truth. On the other side I would agree that in my observations most woman prefer the happy lie to the truth so they tend not to fit in with logical pursuits...
Er, so your trying to take the right to vote away from those pregnant? I think you would need a very compelling argument for anyone to agree with you.
Just because someone says something is a rhetorical question doesn't mean it shouldn't be answered. The labeling it as rhetorical question just shows that their mind is closed and they are trying to avoid debate, isn't that your intent? Oh don't bother responding that was a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious...
In this case you have a postulate hiding inside a rhetorical question. They do this, as you have so clearly shown, in order to try and keep people from remarking on the postulate itself. In order to be nice, as I try not to be a raving jack
I mean other than calling a corporation a "person" is a shorthand for a long and involved set of rulings that that don't make it a person but instead say that inherits some of the rights of those who own it?
Even if it really meant that a corporation was a real "person" why would a chimp be a better candidate? From a biological perspective a corporation is made up of member people so it is way closer to a human than a chimp can ever be. From an intellectual perspective a corporation is, usually, made up of relatively intelligent adults while a chimp is at best in the 3-4 year old category. From a law, or understanding of it at least, perspective most corporations far exceed even human standards, think of all the compliance, accountants and HR drones.
Ah, but like most rhetorical questions the answer is easy.
To put it in simple terms...
Just because some people decide to deal together as a group does not magically take away their rights so some rights of the individuals are exercisable by the corporation. Just because a chimp can recognize an apple does not mean that it can understand and enter into our social contract.
I would suggest this article if you are interested in the concept of the social contract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Presuming the US here is a article on Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
And just to be complete here is one about how the social contract is wrong (which I would disagree with): http://www.animalethics.org.uk/contractarianism.html
I would suggest this article if you actually care what "personhood" they are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
"Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights which are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination." - above link
In my mind there is no reason for the total of ALL forms of the government to confiscate more than 25% of the total economy for whatever moronic purposes they wish to put it to (yes, this is about what the Feds are on track to spend this year but this should cover ALL levels of government). This should be more than enough to run a reasonable defense and provide some basic social services.
As for individual rates I would have to set both a min and a max. No person should send less than 5% of his income (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government and no person should be coerced to send more than 50% (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government. If unable to give at least 5% you should be considered chattel and treated as such. At more than 50% you should be considered a slave and we should do the honest thing and just call you that.
In my mind any distribution that meets this would be fair. Now if you are asking what an ideal state would be I believe having the total tax burden in the 10%-15% range would be much better for us as a whole.