GasBandit
Staff member
I'd definitely support disbanding the DEA.The DEA exists to abuse minorities, overuse SWAT teams, enrich themselves via criminal forfeiture, and to promote the Sinola Cartel.
I'd definitely support disbanding the DEA.The DEA exists to abuse minorities, overuse SWAT teams, enrich themselves via criminal forfeiture, and to promote the Sinola Cartel.
Except that it's literally the same thing, as the extra step is just a formality, as you still end up with 30% of what you produce while 70% goes to charity. The reason i was leaving it opened for when it's voluntary is because, even if you believe in deontology, that in no way affects reality, so if giving 70% to charity actually screws up the economy, your precious beliefs won't matter for shit.Ya that's basically where I'm going with this, to an extent. And extremely few believe in consequentialism unfettered, as that's quite literally "the ends justify the means."
Li3n, you're trying to get me on board with the general idea that as long as the outcome is the same, the means don't matter. They do. But the scope of the problem justifies greater and greater means to solve it, but examining such, and examining just how much they work or don't work is also part of that. The main problem there is how it's perceived for the same data.
Well, if you want to find out, you know what you have to do.The classic example of what I mean is when looking at the Billions (or higher) of dollars put into Welfare (and related) for the last 50 (or more) years. If you compare unemployment and poverty rates, they are very un-related to the amount of money put in. But even if you accept that idea, one side will say "Look, all this money has done nothing, we should cut it/tax cut it/do something else with it," whereas another side would say "Look at all this money in, it would be so much worse right now if it hadn't been spent! We need to spend more on it to bring these people up!"
Who is right?
But then who would lose a bunch of weapons they sold the cartels because the bugs they where tracking them with had shitty battery life? Or was that the ATF?I'd definitely support disbanding the DEA.
Yeah, that was the ATF. Better disband them, too.But then who would lose a bunch of weapons they sold the cartels because the bugs they where tracking them with had shitty battery life? Or was that the ATF?
In one reality, life goes on as it has before.Except that it's literally the same thing, as the extra step is just a formality, as you still end up with 30% of what you produce while 70% goes to charity. The reason i was leaving it opened for when it's voluntary is because, even if you believe in deontology, that in no way affects reality, so if giving 70% to charity actually screws up the economy, your precious beliefs won't matter for shit.
The main reason they're against legalizing recreational marijuana is because it cuts into the profit margins of the Sinola Cartel. The DEA honestly does more harm than good from what I can tell. The Coast Guard and Customs are way more effective at stopping the influx of drugs into the USA.I'd definitely support disbanding the DEA.
You're putting "government" and "charity" as the same thing. They don't resemble each other even a bit, and if your charity STARTS to resemble government, it's probably a sign there's something seriously wrong!Except that it's literally the same thing, as the extra step is just a formality, as you still end up with 30% of what you produce while 70% goes to charity. The reason i was leaving it opened for when it's voluntary is because, even if you believe in deontology, that in no way affects reality, so if giving 70% to charity actually screws up the economy, your precious beliefs won't matter for shit.
Hey, hey, there's no need to get all LISPy with us.The government as it is now (in your country and in mine) are more out to protect the major criminals financing them, like *($$*)$)#$*)$*)**)*****Error in transmission*****
Why would they want to support the Cartel? Or is this just a case of wanting to justify your own existence?The main reason they're against legalizing recreational marijuana is because it cuts into the profit margins of the Sinola Cartel. The DEA honestly does more harm than good from what I can tell. The Coast Guard and Customs are way more effective at stopping the influx of drugs into the USA.
Starting in 2000, the DEA partnered with the Sinaloa Cartel to work against the other cartels. The Sinaloa would inform on the other Cartels, the DEA would strike, while leaving the Sinaloa unhindered - and in many cases, protected. Essentially, the DEA helped the Sinaloa Cartel take a commanding position in the Mexican drug trade. To this day, they aid the Sinaloa Cartel while pursuing the smaller players.Why would they want to support the Cartel? Or is this just a case of wanting to justify your own existence?
I really wonder whether it's incompetence, stubbornness, or old age and senility sometimes.
If you have freedom of religion, then that's OK. If you don't, then it isn't. It's not like we have freedom of government. "Nah, they did a shitty job last year, I'm not paying taxes." In this (and most western countries) you can leave your religion with only social, not legal consequences. Most countries that have "Islamic" in their full name, not so much freedom of Religion, so a different issue.So a church that insists on/forces tithes, or minimum donations, to do their charity work, with a penalty of Eternal Damnation (or at least, excommunication or shaming) for not giving (enough), does that still fall under "charity" for you? The R.C. Church forced people to give 1/10th of their income for a good long while. Many protestant beliefs still do. Muslims are obliged to give zakat, too - though they calculate it more on ownership than on earnings, it can still mount up to quite a bit.
Yeah that sounds more to me like more an issue of "separation of Church and State."Most countries that have "Islamic" in their full name, not so much freedom of Religion, so a different issue.
No... not at random!... are you changing font size at random on purpose?[DOUBLEPOST=1490038913,1490038856][/DOUBLEPOST]
Look, if you keep adding more conditions to it, when i was talking a hypothetical to make a point about certain principles we're going to get nowhere.You're putting "government" and "charity" as the same thing. They don't resemble each other even a bit, and if your charity STARTS to resemble government, it's probably a sign there's something seriously wrong!
But beyond that, after giving your money to a charity, if you don't like what they're doing with it, you can change whom you're giving it to. If you don't like what the government's doing, GOOD FUCKING LUCK. As that Princeton study from 2014 showed (reporting on it), you have no influence on what the government does, so thus there's a HUGE difference on whether you give your money to somebody you specifically support, versus giving it to "the government" as they are not a charity. A gang that asks for "Protection" money is a lot closer analogy, except they actually protect you from the other criminals (sometimes). The government as it is now (in your country and in mine) are more out to protect the major criminals financing them, like *($$*)$)#$*)$*)**)*****Error in transmission*****
In one reality, life goes on as it has before.
In another reality, @Li3n is followed around by a squad of trained assassins, weapons always trained on his person. This team has given assurances that they will never fire their weapons at him, are undetectable by anyone except their target, and are sworn to secrecy.
Both realities are the same.
The issue is that, if you don't pay taxes, there's no way to insure you also don't get to use any of the things those taxes pay for."Nah, they did a shitty job last year, I'm not paying taxes."
The analogy worked precisely as intended, from the looks of it.Yeah, no difference, except that one where the target lives in fear... which would be equivalent to coercion vs it being voluntary, which kind of ruins the analogy.
And i'm going to assume that, by including that part, you admit to yourself that the realities would be functionally identical otherwise...
...
But i'd like to pont out that i'm not arguing how you do something doesn't matter, but just the results, because in 99% of instances, how you do something influences the outcome...
The difference (as I said above) is that you can influence and change which charities you support, whereas with government your influence is limited (to zero, practically speaking). As for it all being taken away by force (100% tax as you said) and then what you "need" determined by some bureaucrat, and hoping that's enough... I need to actually enumerate the problem with that versus determining yourself what you actually need?So how about addressing the actual point of how there any difference between keeping 30% or receiving it back (fast enough that you don't lack the ability to buy anything)? And lets assume we're voluntarily giving it to a charity. (though i am kind of forgetting that the point of it was...)
And you're still ignoring my initial point (which was that charities clearly won't be able to replace government run social programs, because if they could we'd never need the government in the 1st place, and we could have classless, stateless communism long ago), which is kind of annoying.
I had to look this up to see if there was actually more than Iran.Most countries that have "Islamic" in their full name
The difference is one of psychology. In one case, you are paid your wages, and then you pay the government. Your work is the source of your livelihood, as well as he source of government funding. In the other, the government is paid your wages, and then the government pays you what's left. The government then becomes the source of your livelihood. Even if the numbers are functionally identical, the psychological difference cannot be ignored.So how about addressing the actual point of how there any difference between keeping 30% or receiving it back (fast enough that you don't lack the ability to buy anything)? And lets assume we're voluntarily giving it to a charity. (though i am kind of forgetting that the point of it was...)
I don't have a link, heard it on the radio this afternoon, but one of the head intel guys basically testified it was caught coincidentally. Which mostly likely means, with all the foreign contacts with Putypoot and other Russian types that a lot of his underlings had they were under surveillance, and I think Twitler has shown himself too not be able to keep his mouth or twittering thumbs quiet.House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected (CNN)
Apparently some of his communication (or those of his underlings) was actually tapped? We'll see how much this blows up (or not), especially depending on who's narrative you want on this.
Interesting comment I read about this:House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected (CNN)
Apparently some of his communication (or those of his underlings) was actually tapped? We'll see how much this blows up (or not), especially depending on who's narrative you want on this.
Nothing Nunes is saying makes any fucking sense.
If any American citizens are incidentally caught and recorded on routine 702 surveillance of foreign officials, their recordings are automatically masked, and investigative agencies or prosecutors require additional FISA warrants to unmask the surveillance before it can be used as evidence of anything.
If Trump and his transition team was caught on 702 surveillance like this, it would be masked and nobody would know about it.
But if that surveillance made it into IC reports, then a FISA warrant must have been issued to unmask it. Which means there's probable cause to unmask it. Which also means it's part of an investigation. Which also means Trump shouldn't see any of it, and Nunes shouldn't be rushing to the White House to tell them about it.
Nunes might legit be doing something seriously wrong here by informing the White House of this shit.
Edit: According to Adam Schiff (ranking member of House Intel Committee), the IC has the authority to unmask US persons' in internal classified reports when they deem it necessary to understand the context of the foreign intelligence being presented. Also, Schiff said he talked to Nunes and Nunes told him most of the names were still masked, but identities could be deduced from context. There's nothing illegal or inappropriate with any of this. Nunes was clearly manufacturing controversy out of thin air, in an effort to give Trump some cover for his wiretapping lies. Despicable.
Now there's a Goodwin!. . . Twitler . . .
This was a fairly clever play by Nunes. The details of this situation already don't look like they really support Trumps assertion if you look even remotely closely at it. But because the story is *slightly* complicated it's really easy to spin it for the dumb dumbs however you want and this gives Trump the cover he needs in the friendly press like Brietbart.House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected (CNN)
Apparently some of his communication (or those of his underlings) was actually tapped? We'll see how much this blows up (or not), especially depending on who's narrative you want on this.
My comment in the other thread got buried in the other discussion, but some Republicans are finally catching on that their constituents would lose out big time. And that was before the midnight amendment that essentially eliminated health insurance altogether. I mean virtually EVERYTHING was exempted from coverage.So it looks like after all his big talk Trump failed to bring the ACA repeal/replace plan through the house and had to postpone the vote. Got to be honest after all the bullshit we've been dealing with I feel like this is really one of the biggest blows to him.
Generally speaking a first term president with a friendly congress should be able to get all of his stuff he brings out in his first year passed. It's just sort of a rule of thumb.
Bitch couldn't even get the one thing republicans have been promising to do for the last 7 years passed. Politically this is really embarrassing, especially with his whole "dealmaker" bullshit being thrown around left and right. This is a *rookie* mistake.
What free market. Before and with the ACA people have about as much choice as a picking an internet provider.The free market won't lower premiums.
I don't want people mis-construing what I wrote as belief that I actually think that it will work or that it is what's advertised, only that it's what they CLAIM they're doing.What free market. Before and with the ACA people have about as much choice as a picking an internet provider.