I guess it could mean something like scholarships for the poor or something? Seeing as how charity is by definition need based I can't very well see a merit based model. Admittedly there is a merit based welfare system too, or at least government money that you can gain access to. They're called grants. If you have a grant proposal call your senator, they tend to have someone on staff whose job is to help with grant writing.
I think you first need to ask do the people of Crimea want to join the Russian Federation? I'm asking this because it is unclear to me if the Ukraine who live there even want to break away. I could be wrong but from what I have seen Russia's interference has more to do with the naval base they have in the area than with any sort of self determination of the Ukrainians living in the area.
This was on the Diane Rehm show today. The representative from the conference of bishops stated that their doctrine clearly states that everything should be done to preserve life, including terminating a pregnancy when the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus isn't viable. This would suggest that their argument will be that their policies are fine and the hospital is at fault, rather than they have a first amendment right to withhold care they find morally objectionable.
And he had to repeat this and various other parts of the doctrine throughout the show as the other guest, and several callers had numerous examples of similar incidents. Not all of them were about abortion either. One caller's horror story involved their father who had a Do No Resuscitate order, that the family and the father had made both the doctors and the hospital very aware of. The man died in the middle of the night and the hospital revived him. He spent a week unconscious in the ICU before the family was able to get the hospital to enforce the DNR.
The ACLU might have a difficult road ahead of them as the conference will blame the hospital, but when something happens once you blame the parties that did it. When something keeps happening you start looking at their bosses.
I'm tired of hearing people use the term "fair" when discussing a socialist system.
Using the force of government to take something from someone and give it to someone else, isn't fair.
You are only rationalizing the unfairness of it by making one of the most devious of excuses. The haves can afford it. The have-nots are victims, so let us victimize the haves in order to make ourselves feel better.
You are just trading the evil corporate thugs you fear from a capitalist system for the evil government thugs you need in order for your socialist system to function.
Really, because under a socialist system there would be no haves to take from and have nots to give to. The makers takers argument is objectivism bs, an ideology of evil if there ever was one. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need," the whole point is that all labor is pooled and the results of that labor is distributed. Under a socialist system nothing would be taken from you because you never owned it in the first place.
So it's there own fault their poor? This sort of victim blaming is the reason there are no productive arguments about poverty. On topic this idea of a guaranteed wage is actually a libertarian idea. Admittedly they call themselves bleeding heart libertarians and it's mainly talk but it's in response to the idea that all labor is a free system of free contracts. Which isn't really true in the real world, as most people are bound by the need to have food and shelter and thus must take whatever they can get regardless of whether or not it's any good.
Umm... Victim blaming? Who is the victim of what?
Some people may be poor because of a flawed system... but some people are poor because they are stupid, or lazy, or something else... do you want to blame their parents for that?
He is conflating blame and the identification of behaviors or acts that result in poverty.
I.e. A crack head is poor because he is addicted to crack.....in his head, that is blaming the crack head for being poor and that is unproductive in discussion about poverty. I mean the causes of poverty does not have real place in a discussion about poverty.
I was actually speaking about a rather pervasive problem in our political circles in which poverty is equated as a moral failing. Thus those in poverty are equated to have done something wrong and thus deserve their fate. Thus the current push to cut any and all assistance to the poor, with no "this is not good let's replace it with something better bromide." If you are not infact arguing that I apologize for mis-categorizing you.
So it's there own fault their poor? This sort of victim blaming is the reason there are no productive arguments about poverty. On topic this idea of a guaranteed wage is actually a libertarian idea. Admittedly they call themselves bleeding heart libertarians and it's mainly talk but it's in response to the idea that all labor is a free system of free contracts. Which isn't really true in the real world, as most people are bound by the need to have food and shelter and thus must take whatever they can get regardless of whether or not it's any good.
The point of a guaranteed minimum income would be to insure that you could survive even if you didn't work. That way everyone would be able to sell his or her labor without the intrinsic coercion of needing to work to live.
On one hand I think it is a good idea, on the other it seems like it would cost far more than the projections. It also wouldn't really solve the coercion problem. Yes an unmarried 20 something could live off the gmi while looking for a dream job, but the same is not true of a 40 something married with children.
bocephus
Free ridding will always be an issue, but I think that it is better to not assume that people will take advantage of free ridding and in an attempt to penalize them make ridding the bus unbearable. I think the better solution is to assume the best about humans and not worry too much about the 2 or 3% that will always attempt to milk the system.
1. he actually dropped the inflation rate from double digits. not only that but dropped the interest rates as well.
2. the deficit was more do to cold war spending against russia than his tax cut which incidently brought in more money than carter at his 70%.
3. yea star wars was a bust but the technology development that came out of it innovated a ton of products.
4. never tried never convicted so no he didn't.
umm, actually his suggestions are much more correct that yours are.
1. On inflation and the 78-79 market crash that cost Carter the election. It was self inflicted the fed did it to themselves after worrying about inflation. After they realized how much damage they had caused they fixed it. Inflation and interest rates were back under control before Regan was even elected, but the damage had been done.
2. You can try and parse numbers how ever you'd like but the deficit radically increased under Regan. The Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts caused Obama's deficit but it's still Obama's deficit. Calling it Regan's deficit is correct.
4. It happened under his watch, what's that saying the buck stops here?
To me it seems like you think your opponent's "bad play" was including curse of shallow graves in his deck. That's only a little elitist don't you think. It seems to me like your opponent made an excellent play. It's turn 3 he has the curse in hand a creature. The other player has a blocker but you don't, hitting you, getting a creature out of the deal, and providing an incentive for the other player not to swing at him seems like a great play. He didn't know that he wasn't going to ever draw a fourth land, mana screw happens to everyone.
Actually none of the examples of poor play with political cards seems like poor play. The players who throw mana into the join forces card clearly decided that what they had in hand was worth the risk of letting another player untap first. Cedrix, I'd assume the caster or the players after you had no idea you could win on the spot with 20 mana, in which case it's a gamble not a punt.
Op you're gripping about this third player becoming a king maker but if you expected him to concede and have no effect on the game why did you play with him in the first place?
Eldrazi Conscription because sometimes you need to general damage someone out with a 1/1.
Outside of that the decks a mono-blue wizard deck and relies on Rayne to draw three or four cards a game. The better your doing the more hate you draw thus the more cards you get.
1.) Holy necro Mystery, just start a new thread already.
2.) Interesting that your source is a climate denial group, wait I'll be civil a conservative think tank that always lines up with the oil industry and believes in a IPPC conspiracy. Also interesting that your article only links to other articles in the same site, wait there's a link to that bastion of rational thought breitbart.com
3.) Maybe I'm being a little sarcastic, here's a link disputing you conspiracy nonsense. Link It's from a blogger so who knows its veracity, but then your article is an editorial about an editorial from a site with an axe to grind.
4.) Although honestly a mod should just lock this page and we open up a new one, I mean seven years.
In general I think that placing more power in the hands of the individual is a good thing. So I would support such a thing. Yes I recognize that limiting campaign contributions would weaken the power of wealthy individuals but it would equalize them with everyone else, which would be a net increase of power.
At the moment campaigns are big business, to big in my opinion. The massive amount of funds required leaves candidates in constant fund-raising mode. When your average politician's full time job is raising money they are just as beholden to their fundraisers if they were on the take.
Personally I'd like to see some combination of public and private financing. There would be a low amount that you can give to any individual candidate, and a ban on supposedly "uncoordinated" spending. I'm sorry but when a senior campaign official leaves a campaign to start a 501c3 that advocates for the candidate I find the fact that they aren't coordinating a legal fiction. In return for these low contribution amounts each candidate would be eligible for matching funds once they raised enough to prove themselves real candidates. The match wouldn't be 1 to 1, I figure the amount you need to raise and the amount received would be different depending on the scale of the election.
Now the matching funds, you could give any amount you wanted to the funds pool. Same way you can give five dollars on your tax return you could give any amount you wanted. You could even have a tax write-off for donations. The larger the pool the more that each candidate would get.
Edit: I had to change computers at work so my post was cut short. I'll pick up here.
You would still need to raise money, you don't just get money until you can prove you are viable candidate. Additionally with low contribution caps you would need to get small amounts from lots of people, no more sugar daddies bankrolling the entire campaign of an otherwise unpopular candidate. This would increase the power of the average citizen as they would need your vote and more importantly the 100 dollars or so that you could give to reach the cutoff for the big money.
This would also still allow people to give large amounts, just not to direct it at will. So yes they would lose power in this situation as their individual voice would only be as large as any other individual voice. I see this change as a good thing, the winner should be the person who presents the best argument, not the person who shouts the loudest and the longest.
Note that what I'm talking about is on a federal level, so we're only talking house, senate and presidential elections. And this likely would need a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a supreme court less hostile to the idea. I'd love to see a state do something like this, laboratories of democracy and all that.
This has been argued before Here is the last thread on this topic. I've stated my views before so I won't repeat them here, suffice to say I consider the action unsportsmanlike. A warning, this topic can quickly derail into a flame war.
Are right wingers inherently more racist? Eh probably, it's a complex question to answer. A core tenant of right wing ideology is the concept of us vs them. This can be displayed positively as a strong sense of community and nationalism, or negatively such as in racist remarks about the out community. This is not exclusive to Republicans either, there are conservative parties in Africa too. There is not a huge skin color divide in Africa, instead in-groups and out-groups are separated by religion, and tribe.
And he had to repeat this and various other parts of the doctrine throughout the show as the other guest, and several callers had numerous examples of similar incidents. Not all of them were about abortion either. One caller's horror story involved their father who had a Do No Resuscitate order, that the family and the father had made both the doctors and the hospital very aware of. The man died in the middle of the night and the hospital revived him. He spent a week unconscious in the ICU before the family was able to get the hospital to enforce the DNR.
The ACLU might have a difficult road ahead of them as the conference will blame the hospital, but when something happens once you blame the parties that did it. When something keeps happening you start looking at their bosses.
Really, because under a socialist system there would be no haves to take from and have nots to give to. The makers takers argument is objectivism bs, an ideology of evil if there ever was one. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need," the whole point is that all labor is pooled and the results of that labor is distributed. Under a socialist system nothing would be taken from you because you never owned it in the first place.
I was actually speaking about a rather pervasive problem in our political circles in which poverty is equated as a moral failing. Thus those in poverty are equated to have done something wrong and thus deserve their fate. Thus the current push to cut any and all assistance to the poor, with no "this is not good let's replace it with something better bromide." If you are not infact arguing that I apologize for mis-categorizing you.
The point of a guaranteed minimum income would be to insure that you could survive even if you didn't work. That way everyone would be able to sell his or her labor without the intrinsic coercion of needing to work to live.
On one hand I think it is a good idea, on the other it seems like it would cost far more than the projections. It also wouldn't really solve the coercion problem. Yes an unmarried 20 something could live off the gmi while looking for a dream job, but the same is not true of a 40 something married with children.
bocephus
Free ridding will always be an issue, but I think that it is better to not assume that people will take advantage of free ridding and in an attempt to penalize them make ridding the bus unbearable. I think the better solution is to assume the best about humans and not worry too much about the 2 or 3% that will always attempt to milk the system.
Here is a link to the BHL page.
umm, actually his suggestions are much more correct that yours are.
1. On inflation and the 78-79 market crash that cost Carter the election. It was self inflicted the fed did it to themselves after worrying about inflation. After they realized how much damage they had caused they fixed it. Inflation and interest rates were back under control before Regan was even elected, but the damage had been done.
2. You can try and parse numbers how ever you'd like but the deficit radically increased under Regan. The Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts caused Obama's deficit but it's still Obama's deficit. Calling it Regan's deficit is correct.
4. It happened under his watch, what's that saying the buck stops here?
Actually none of the examples of poor play with political cards seems like poor play. The players who throw mana into the join forces card clearly decided that what they had in hand was worth the risk of letting another player untap first. Cedrix, I'd assume the caster or the players after you had no idea you could win on the spot with 20 mana, in which case it's a gamble not a punt.
Op you're gripping about this third player becoming a king maker but if you expected him to concede and have no effect on the game why did you play with him in the first place?
Vanishing is the best at keeping her alive.
Alexi's Cloak can counter targeted removal.
Eldrazi Conscription because sometimes you need to general damage someone out with a 1/1.
Outside of that the decks a mono-blue wizard deck and relies on Rayne to draw three or four cards a game. The better your doing the more hate you draw thus the more cards you get.
2.) Interesting that your source is a climate denial group, wait I'll be civil a conservative think tank that always lines up with the oil industry and believes in a IPPC conspiracy. Also interesting that your article only links to other articles in the same site, wait there's a link to that bastion of rational thought breitbart.com
3.) Maybe I'm being a little sarcastic, here's a link disputing you conspiracy nonsense. Link It's from a blogger so who knows its veracity, but then your article is an editorial about an editorial from a site with an axe to grind.
4.) Although honestly a mod should just lock this page and we open up a new one, I mean seven years.
At the moment campaigns are big business, to big in my opinion. The massive amount of funds required leaves candidates in constant fund-raising mode. When your average politician's full time job is raising money they are just as beholden to their fundraisers if they were on the take.
Personally I'd like to see some combination of public and private financing. There would be a low amount that you can give to any individual candidate, and a ban on supposedly "uncoordinated" spending. I'm sorry but when a senior campaign official leaves a campaign to start a 501c3 that advocates for the candidate I find the fact that they aren't coordinating a legal fiction. In return for these low contribution amounts each candidate would be eligible for matching funds once they raised enough to prove themselves real candidates. The match wouldn't be 1 to 1, I figure the amount you need to raise and the amount received would be different depending on the scale of the election.
Now the matching funds, you could give any amount you wanted to the funds pool. Same way you can give five dollars on your tax return you could give any amount you wanted. You could even have a tax write-off for donations. The larger the pool the more that each candidate would get.
Edit: I had to change computers at work so my post was cut short. I'll pick up here.
You would still need to raise money, you don't just get money until you can prove you are viable candidate. Additionally with low contribution caps you would need to get small amounts from lots of people, no more sugar daddies bankrolling the entire campaign of an otherwise unpopular candidate. This would increase the power of the average citizen as they would need your vote and more importantly the 100 dollars or so that you could give to reach the cutoff for the big money.
This would also still allow people to give large amounts, just not to direct it at will. So yes they would lose power in this situation as their individual voice would only be as large as any other individual voice. I see this change as a good thing, the winner should be the person who presents the best argument, not the person who shouts the loudest and the longest.
Note that what I'm talking about is on a federal level, so we're only talking house, senate and presidential elections. And this likely would need a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a supreme court less hostile to the idea. I'd love to see a state do something like this, laboratories of democracy and all that.