|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2016 04:49 LegalLord wrote:
If it comes down to "Hillary sux" vs "Trump sux" then I think Trump can win.
I hope Trump wins, so all these idio...uhm.. I mean, so all these "special" people will see that Trump, (just like Obama before him) is all talk and no action...remember back in 2008 change?
I'll just sit back and watch how this "drumpfs" out. 
|
On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously.
Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol
Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class.
|
Canada11603 Posts
On March 01 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:
It should be very clear to everyone that Trump is a master media manipulator, and far more skilled at it than any other politician in the race. This is why I'm not buying this notion Trump is going to be exposed come the general election or that the democrats are going to get out some message on Trump that isn't already out there.
People thought Reagan was the Teflon man, but he doesn't have anything on Trump. I can't think of any serious candidate that could be so wishy washy on the KKK and not see his support melt away. I can think of zero of my favourite leaders, politicians, or candidates that I would continue supporting after that sort of thing, and yet the man marches on unphased. I don't know if he is such a manipulator as he has found a base that just could NOT care less.
|
On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about.
Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once.
|
On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class.
Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice.
|
On March 01 2016 07:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class. Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice.
TIL:
Would = will
|
On March 01 2016 07:03 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:01 OtherWorld wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. Productive members of society do benefit from welfare state... Oh? do enlighten me.
I already made a case for welfare state earlier, but anyways (and in addition to Plansix's reason), unless what you mean by "productive members of society" is "rich people" (in which case you can stop reading right now), welfare state :
(1) allows productive members of society who aren't super-rich to get higher education for their kids
(2) allows productive members of society who aren't super-rich to get access to more advanced and better healthcare
The two points above are because any citizen benefits from the welfare state's service, so whether you're making $15K/year, $50K/year or $50K/year, you don't have to pay that $35K medical bill.
(3 and most important point) allows - potential - productive members of society who aren't super-rich to get more opportunities to become really productive (and rich, while we're at it) members of society ; welfare state is key to obtaining something close to equal opportunities
The point above is most notably explained by points (1) and (2) ; someone who comes from a poor family with no money for higher education will have a harder time becoming a doctor/lawyer/whatever than someone from a rich family if no Welfare State is in place (Welfare State alone does not resolve this issue though, but it does reduce it).
(4) allows society as a whole to progress and become a healthier and wealthier society
The point above is pretty obvious given the previous points.
|
On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once.
So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser.
|
On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one.
Like Plansix said: please elaborate on Hillary's role in this, and how "the debate process" is supposed to have been rigged by her.
|
On March 01 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:18 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class. Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice. TIL: Would = will
He would have sex with his daughter if he could. But he can't because she won't let him and he is her dad. Also its illegal, but I don't think that would really slow him down. So he wants to bang his daughter.
|
On March 01 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:18 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more.
The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class. Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice. TIL: Would = will He would have sex with his daughter if he could. But he can't because she won't let him and he is her dad. Also its illegal, but I don't think that would really slow him down. So he wants to bang his daughter.
Taken as a separate fact though, I don't see what's so wrong with the idea of wanting to bang someone, that you cannot attain because of social norms?
|
On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote:
Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class.
That's where you're fundamentally wrong though, a well-made Welfare State does take more stuff from the middle class without taking first more stuff from the higher class. Unless you're talking about the middle class to which people like Trump or Bloomberg belong.
|
Canada11603 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:23 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:18 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation.
Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class. Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice. TIL: Would = will He would have sex with his daughter if he could. But he can't because she won't let him and he is her dad. Also its illegal, but I don't think that would really slow him down. So he wants to bang his daughter. Taken as a separate fact though, I don't see what's so wrong with the idea of wanting to bang someone, that you cannot attain because of social norms?
In effect, as long as there is mutual consent, it's okay?
|
On March 01 2016 07:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means.
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. Shouldn't be hard to guess. I've talked about it more than once. So just vague accusations and then silence when people ask for specific details? Because that sounds like the argument of a sore loser.
No just lazy folks who ignored or missed the issues be pointed out already and refusing to even try to look into it.
I'm not going to lay it out again just for you folks to say "but you can't prove it in a court of law". Anyone with any sense of objectivity can see how the debate process was manipulated by Hillary and the DNC which was most clearly displayed when Hillary suddenly wanted a debate in NH.
Bernie's always wanted more debates same with O'Malley, as soon as Hillary actually wanted more debates, she got them and DWS abandoned her repeated statements that they weren't needed and wouldn't happen.
It's obvious the DNC didn't change it's opinion all of the sudden because of Sanders, clearly the only person standing in the way of more debates earlier in the process was Hillary.
|
Businessman Donald Trump’s support among Republican voters has hit a new national high of 49 percent, according to a CNN/ORC poll. By contrast, the party's nominee in 2012, Mitt Romney, didn’t reach 49 percent in a poll until mid-April of that year.
As YouGov’s William Jordan noted, Romney’s highest polling number prior to that was 40 percent, which he achieved once in mid-January 2012 and once at the end of February. Support for Trump has been over 40 percent in the last four national polls, and flirted with the 40 percent mark in some polls in early December.
Single polls can vary considerably, though, so a better metric is how Trump is performing relative to Romney in the polling averages. Here, too, Trump has the advantage.
Trump is averaging over 10 percent more support than Romney was at this point in the 2012 cycle, and has consistently outperformed Romney’s polling averages since September. The gap was narrower at the beginning of this month -- Trump was averaging 36 percent support compared to Romney’s 30 percent in 2012. But Trump’s numbers have risen quickly in recent weeks.
National primary polls should be viewed with caution. The numbers aren’t indicative of who will win any particular primary contest since there isn't a national primary. But the polls are a good indication of sentiment nationwide, and Republicans are clearly warming to Trump as he wins in the early states.
Source
|
On March 01 2016 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm using the word "rig/rigged" to indicate " To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain:" I think the definition you all are imagining has some sort of more strict parameters?
It's not being a "sore loser" or anything like that it's a statement of fact.
Further the "other than trying to win" confirms the last part about writing it off as Kwiz tried to suggest wasn't accurate.
What you're seeing is largely the establishment flexing its muscles against an outsider candidate. You can call that unfair, but nothing that's happened is outside of the establishment's right or prerogative. The media's bias against Sanders is an extension of the establishment's preferences (and also a result of bad journalism).
That's Sanders' handicap, and it was always going to be his handicap. I'm not qualified to guess how much it's hurt him, but in my opinion (as a Sanders supporter who'll be voting for him tomorrow) complaining about it is a distraction from his message.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 01 2016 07:27 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 07:23 OtherWorld wrote:On March 01 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:18 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further.
Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. Trump is not looking to band his daughter wtf lol Trump is only guy that wants to make the government more efficient instead of taking more stuff from the middle class. Clearly you need to brush up on your Trump. The man said he would bang his daughter if she wasn't his daughter. On national TV, twice. TIL: Would = will He would have sex with his daughter if he could. But he can't because she won't let him and he is her dad. Also its illegal, but I don't think that would really slow him down. So he wants to bang his daughter. Taken as a separate fact though, I don't see what's so wrong with the idea of wanting to bang someone, that you cannot attain because of social norms? In effect, as long as there is mutual consent, it's okay?
From the point of view of the two people concerned, it's okay as long as there's consent. From the point of view of society, I think the idea that two close members of a family can have sex without it being noticeable could be an issue if generalized.
|
For decades massive, open-pit coal mines have been feeding the country's appetite for energy. Once coal companies are done with the land, they're supposed to restore it. But as America's coal industry declines, it may not have the funding to keep its cleanup promises.
Restoring a mine to its original state is an elaborate and expensive process, one that some say makes the land better than before. The coal companies, however, often don't have to set aside money for future cleanup processes thanks to a provision called "self-bonding" — an assurance for companies to pay for reclamation based only on their financial health.
Virginia-based Alpha Natural Resources, a coal company with mines in Appalachia and Wyoming, declared bankruptcy in August. Operations still continue at the company's Wyoming mines and regulators estimate it would cost over $400 million to clean up those sites once mining is complete. But Alpha was approved to ensure its cleanup costs with self-bonds.
"A self-bond isn't much more than a wink and a promise," says Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that focuses on sustainability. "A promise that ... when the time comes, you'll be good for it."
But some of these companies may no longer be good for it. Federal regulations require that a company pass a test of financial strength in order to qualify for self-bonding, although some companies have been approved despite their questionable financial status.
In September, a second major company, Arch Coal, was reapproved to self-bond and filed for bankruptcy four months later.
Source
|
The illegality of incest (between two consenting adults) is one of the most ridiculous things around. It'll become legal in due time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1882
1098
41
EPT
