LTS

I had this in the quoted queue before you posted the one below. Thanks for the link and I'll comment on double taxation below. However, it has nothing to do with the "party of lower taxes" which is a point I also made. This is the doing of all parties. So, to dig this point further. The demarcation point of "double taxation" is the entity that taxes the income. That's fair. I look even deeper and see that a certain percentage of my income is pre-defined within each entities combined taxation rate as a tax for a particular purpose (medicare, SS, etc.) So, in theory my income is being taxed more than double. My initial reading of double tax is like reading an EBITDA. Operating Expense and Capital Expense both draw from the same revenue, however they are not double expenses, just different expenses. Yes, but at the same time, the Democratic party has been more in favor of government programs which are funded upon taxes which does create a redistribution of wealth. It's not specifically taking money from one person's pocket to another, but it is taking money from one person's pocket and not allowing them a choice on where it gets used. If taxes only funded the government that would be one thing. However, government programs deliver financial assistance to people and that is what I would certainly consider redistribution of wealth.

It's all good. It's personal taste. I find him rather funny in this and other things. Some people find Jim Breuer funny... I can't stand him.

Well, you've got your head up a chicken's arse, so I'm not sure you are an authority on where things should go OR what is unfunny. ?

"They" are not double taxing us. The Republican led Federal Government is taxing us. The Democrat led State Government is taxing us. It is paying two taxes, but it's not double. There's a difference. Like if I have an apple and a carrot. I have two items, but not double of anything. Also.. this system has existed forever, so it's really not something you can attribute to the "party of lower taxes" can you?

This seemed like the best place to put this...

Not really sure I am following you. The federal government is only taxing us once. The state government taxes us once. NYS could find a more creative way of dealing with this.

Beyond the other items, having NO parties creates a logistical nightmare. For any given election how do you limit the ballot? Who is allowed in a debate? There are a litany of items that would need some realistic limit or else they would be rendered useless and thus hindering the system more.

So, their best hope of an argument is that $10,000 is not equally applied to States due to their varying tax rates. If the Federal Government instead said you are capped at 80% deduction that would be "equal". Of course be careful what you wish for... if you want pure states rights then the Federal Government should stipulate that 0% of your state taxes are deductible.

Very possibly. Frankly, if the masses aren't educated they are easier to control. That topic isn't really pertinent to this thread except that I believe education is underfunded as potentially one way to keep people from questioning government. A clear side effect of that is the impact to those who still try to educate children.

As a registered independent... I despise both the Democratic and Republican parties for the twits they keep putting up for office. I welcome a much broader spectrum than the pseudo-factional Elephants and Donkeys. As for why we don't look past the two party system? We suck, as a population. We can't use our brains to process options. We hate them. People, honestly, don't want to think. If you had to present a third side to an argument, let alone a fourth or a fifth, the entire conversation would be ignored. People can't handle it because it takes time away from worrying about their next status symbol purchase or what mindless television show to watch. Imagine the news spending 10 minutes explaining 5 different party solutions to a problem. People would turn it off. That said, I wish people wouldn't. I wish they would be more interested in how the country operates than spending 16 hours binge-watching a television show. I wish the media would actually spend time introducing alternate viewpoints. There are plenty of third party sites on the Internet, but until mainstream media picks it up, there's no chance of people being interested. I was excited when CNN actually held Libertarian town hall meetings. I think it was a step in the right direction (even if it had been some socialist party instead of Libertarian). Debates need to have multiple parties involved as well. This would open the eyes of people. I believe it would also lessen the attack responses that the two party system invites in which a candidate never answers what they would do, they only tell you what the other candidate can't or won't do. It's much harder if there are 5 people on stage. All in all, introducing a wider spectrum of viewpoints into society and thus into Congress would be great. It would or should make the government a bit more central thinking.

SAVAGE! ?

Stats are cool... I'm way more interested in the mental aspects of the game. 78.62% of the game is mental, the rest is emotion.... or something. And this avatar is bugging me... I need to find inspiration for the next one.

Well, the standards for news organizations may be higher in what they report, but not necessarily in what they choose to not report. I'm not sure any news outlet is really interested in reporting the truth as much as they are in supporting a narrative. Certainly a news organization is held to a higher standard than a single person, but that standard is still pretty low these days.

Based on your response I have now read more background on the project and see that even the reference to the lead character is flawed as it chooses to use the female name as opposed to the name Gill went by. (Using Jean Marie rather than Dante "Tex"). The soldier discussion wasn't about the hundreds of extras. It's about leading characters playing the part of a military person. It's not a perfect example (and I wanted to stay away from race). Let's try this another way and perhaps make it a more interesting question. With transgender people stating that only transgender people should play a transgender role, then is the reverse logic also supported? Should transgender people be allowed to play the role of a non-transgender person? Assume this is not talking about roles where there is no romantic involvement such that the sexuality of a character is not remotely relevant to the film. Always curious how that works...

Great response. Thank you. First, just keep in mind my wife was a teacher. I have many friends who are teachers and many who are administrators. I am very aware of education politics. I have a friend who is a Union rep for teachers. I really do see all sides of the situation, albeit no longer any of them being first hand. Your illustration about hard working teachers who get cut is a great example. I think that actually shows my problem with Unions. The best teachers are irrelevant as during a time of cuts its about salaries, not abilities. Teaching has a certain level of "taking your bag". A friend of mine started a learning center, she's doing very well. It takes a lot of hard work, but she's doing it. There are options, granted it might not be easy, but that was kind of my point. You have to work harder to make it happen. Not necessarily just work hard as a teacher, but also as a business person. Granted I use one person as an example. I read other articles about teachers doing tutoring and other education related jobs to help make ends meet. Is there a business to be made there? I don't know, it's not something I've studied. Given what my friend has accomplished, I think there are possibilities. The private school reference to a factory line is applicable as much to public school as it may be private. Public education is about who passes the state tests. It's all metrics. The kids learning is not as relevant as it used to be. Kids are passed along from grade to grade. I don't think there's any real difference except one is funded by the government and our taxes and especially beholden to special interest groups/corporations like Pearson. Teachers are, in my opinion, one of the most important professions we have. An educated population leads to a better society. The entire system is an issue. Some teachers put up with it because of their passion to teach. I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. There are other teachers who are there because it's a paycheck. I know, my kids have had them. For the profession of public school teaching, Unions are critically important. At the same time, what have they accomplished? When reading about the recent strikes it was noted that teacher's salaries have been declining. The strikes, while helping the salaries of the teachers, may have an adverse impact in that the only way to fund the school is from tax dollars. School budgets have a hard time passing because many people who don't have kids or no longer have kids don't want to help fund the education of the next generation. So, what cuts will need to be made in order to afford the teachers' raises? I don't know what is going to happen with education specifically. It's fundamentally broken, much like healthcare. The numbers of home schooled kids is rising. Private schools have been changing their business models looking to pull more of the middle-upper "middle class". As this happens even more people will vote against public school budgets and will vote in favor of lawmakers who reduce public school expenses. The Republican tax bill allowing the use of up to $10k for private school tuition makes a huge difference as well. Reference materials: https://www.wsj.com/articles/losing-students-private-schools-try-to-change-1514557437

So many dangers just diving into the water. Quite a few years ago a guy who hung out with a bunch of people I knew dove off the back of a boat. One side of the boat it was pretty deep, but he dove off the side where it was apparently only 4 feet deep. Broke his neck and is paralyzed. He very well would have drowned had the people on the boat not been right there and awake. We had a boat when I was growing up and I think the only time we ever dove off of it was when we were well out in the middle of Lake Erie.

That's correct. That was my statement earlier. I know that my company can screw me over and I know I don't have a Union. I choose that because at the same time I believe that i have the appropriate skill set where the company needs me more than I need them. I do also run some side work. I definitely don't dismiss them. It would be nice if they were unnecessary. It would be nice if management of a company could find a way to take care of employees such that no one would feel that a Union was necessary. Fundamentally I believe they create an adversarial relationship more than a collaborative one and that, overall, is not as optimal. It doesn't mean it's not necessary.

This kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more. This desire that the actor must be the same as the character they represent. I guess all those war movies better start hiring real soldiers. I think it's ridiculous. A well known name is going to bring attention to their lifestyle and they don't want that? So, let's get a trans actor in there and then the only people who will care about the movie is the trans community, who already knows about their lifestyle.

I thought I had said before that Unions can be good or bad, depending on how they are run. I might have omitted it in an revision so I only think that I said it. I am aware of the what Unions do on behalf of their constituents as well. What i have said is that some of the things they do may not be in the best interest of all their constituents though. Sometimes the majority wants X and the best thing for a certain group of employees may have been Y. It happened in my family. Personally, I never want to be in a Union. I don't want an organization having that much influence over my work life. It's just who I am. It doesn't matter to me if others want to be in a Union or need to be in a Union. I'm good with whatever works best for people. If the Union provides the right support for a person, then it's a good thing.

That's awful. Drowning is one of those ways I would never want to go out.

I think it's highly representative of the socio-economic surroundings they come from. A large proportion of NFL players come from areas where this behavior is the norm and it's all they've known. They may have money but that, unfortunately, does not change what they know. I'm sure it plays into it. The key factors to me? Most players know they only get a few short years in the league. They've worked so hard that they want to live the lifestyle. So they do it. Living the lifestyle means they attract some unsavory people (if they weren't there all along). They are protective of their lifestyle and don't want to let it go. They are already likely making deficient decisions due to years of minor to major head trauma. It's all a very bad cocktail.

I think it's more the propensity to see trouble where no trouble exists and the ability to assert that innocent events or actions are somehow tied to the root of all evil despite any evidence. For example... Whereas most people would see a brother and sister being cute, you might assert that he's giving her the kiss of death and checking her pulse because she stole his binky last Wednesday in order to payoff the babysitter so she could get an extra cookie at bedtime.

I think the Washington game is the best bet. The 1pm start allows for time after the game. For some reason I can't explain, the St. Louis game seems like it might be something those in TW's ticket group might not want to give up. And CBJ on a Sunday night at 6pm... that might as well be a weeknight game. ? So, I chimed in anyway.

I'm along for the ride... I won't know the hockey schedule until September. So I will adjust to whatever, buy my own ticket, whatever it takes. I can't commit to anything at this point, so my input on what game is unimportant. ?

See, the Royal might be okay. But you know they won't just go back to Royal... and then you throw in your last line and already I've a problem with it. I completely despised those uniforms..