Member since January 24, 2013
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
Why don't you go browse some
and pick a few to favorite?
commented on Mike Luckovich
15 days ago
While I am appalled by the theft of these images, there’s a huge difference between a thief stealing private files and the government stealing private files. This kind of false equivalency minimized the huge damage a government spying on its people can do, because the jackasses who stole and posted these pictures can be prosecuted while the government cannot.
commented on Stuart Carlson
21 days ago
Not quite. 401(k)s are intended to take advantage of compound interest. Because you hold all the money and do not pay taxes on it until you take it out, there is more in the pool to compound.
As a result, you have more growth (hopefully) in your account and down the line the government gets more revenue.
Sadly, 401(k)s are largely a failed experiment.
Yeah, take California that is doing better economically and with employment that almost any other state. Damn them.
I agree. That is interesting. Buffet is playing by the rules as they stand, while advocating for the rules to change.
It makes no sense to tie your hands behind your back while the people you are fighting are allowed to have guns. So as long as guns are allowed, you use them.
However, you can still believe that guns shouldn’t be used. And you can also believe that inversions shouldn’t be allowed, and work to make it happen.
Well, they not only want to live “tax free” but they want the benefits, infrastructure and protections that are paid for by taxes.
In other words, these inversions are essentially seeking to freeload on the rest of us.
Corporation benefit mightily from the government resources — educated workforce, cheap postal service, courts and police, roads and bridges, food inspection, investment and bank account insurance, etc. — but don’t want to pay for it.
They are cheap, entitled freeloaders who want to get everything for free. That used to be something the GOP didn’t like — at least if you are an urban minority.
commented on Mike Luckovich
21 days ago
We really should protect our first amendment rights to bear arms, all arms!
After all, why limit it to gunpowder-based arms? We should be allowed to store chemical and biological weapons in our house to throw at intruders if we want! Suitcase nukes for protecting our suburban towns from the urban hordes!
After all, the Constitution doesn’t define “arms” at all, so they are all fair game. I mean, they didn’t have 100 round capacity magazines for weapons that could fire five bullets a second back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, but we’re allowed to have them! ALL ARMS MUST BE LEGAL TO CARRY IN A CHURCH OR BAR!
Unless you believe the idiocy above, that all arms should be legal, then you believe in arms control. And if you believe in arms control, then we should be able to discuss which arms are allowed and which are not.
Myself, I would limit non-sporting weapons (hunting, target, etc.) to 10 rounds and limit firing speed, require that they be locked separate from their ammo when not in use, and shooters be trained and licensed just like drivers and weapons be registered just like cars.
Unless you plan on armed insurrection or mass murder there are few rational reasons to have more firepower than listed above.
commented on Ben Sargent
21 days ago
No, the chicken little approach is not science.
But the evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies are and they say that if we don’t get our asses in gear we may lose our asses.
That’s because you haven’t looked. This is the first link on Google for “Holocene Maximum Polar Bears.”
Your ignorance is not evidence that something doesn’t exist.
What’s really funny about that comment is that climate change folks DO believe we can adapt to changing circumstances. We believe that we can adapt our actions to reduce the harm that global climate change will do to humans.
Deniers are missing the point so blatantly that it has to be psychosis: We built our cities and civilizations based on where the climate was best for it, and if the climate shifts then at best it will be annoying but at worst it could force us to have to move and rebuild or die.
That’s REALLY expensive, and can harm economies and cultures. Imagine if Florida loses 100 feet of shoreline — what’s the cost to tourism in America, to the entire economy of the South, to all the people who own land on the shores. And 100 feet is likely!
Climate change folks are looking for us to adapt, not denying that we can.
What benefit do people who “lie” about climate change get? That’s what I don’t understand about the deniers who accuse people who understand the science of … something evil.
Is it just that we’re bad people and want to harm others?
It’s like the Underpants Gnomes in South Park. Step 1: Steal Underpants. Step 2: (silence). Step 3: PROFIT!
Copyright © 2014. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.