A million a year and all you have to do is not go full Kanye.
Difficulty level: impossible.
Difficulty level: impossible.
It's bad what's happening, but it's a sign of better days to come. He's pushing hard because he knows he's going to lose the next election, so he's trying to get as much of his agenda through before he's just a dude with rich parents again.
I did steal Jordan Petersons line about "tell the truth or at least try not to lie", but that's one line in a novel length book so I think it'll at be ok.
That's an insane demand from the government, to turn every emergency room in the country into a 24/7 abortion clinic and the ER doctors would have been forced to do the procedures.
Got a link to one? I'll add it along with my :regional_indicator_f: which we sadly lack.
Green at home 'cause I'm cheap, red at work because I'm only cheap when it's my money I'm spending. :P
tbf, it's sorta impressive that they turned a program intended to show xml into 16 different application platforms integrated into one. But of course it's bloated thereby....
I don't think it's a whitepill or a blackpill, it's just the way these people are. Just another reason to avoid them, because victory doesn't involve them at all, it involves our own personal victories.
Even if they succeed and slaughter every one of us so our ideas are totally silenced, they'll still seek out our ghosts because they need someone to hate.
It's actually sad.
It's actually sad.
What we learned in recent years is that these people will love who they're told and hate who they're told. They hate Nazis and call for death to Israel and the Jews because that's what the Teevee told them to do. They loved electric car guy but now they hate them. They loved Trump until they hated Trump.
I wonder if the powers that be do it on purpose as a power trip?
I wonder if the powers that be do it on purpose as a power trip?
Some people claim that places like the UK have been in austerity for 10 or 20 years. Nothing could be further from reality.
Debt grew from about 30% of gdp in 2000 to over 100% of gdp today. Almost half of all the money spent in the economy comes from the government, and at its peak more than half the money spent in the economy came from government.
The question isn't about austerity because the government hasn't been austere (virtually no government on earth has been which is why despite devastatingly high taxes governments have also been racking up massive debt). The question is where is your money going?
There is no political party in most governments who are willing to be austere. That would mean laying off billions of pounds worth of bureaucrats and shutting off billions of pounds worth of pet projects, and even the tories aren't willing to do that.
Historically, income taxes are something of an aberration, and even when the UK implemented them in 1842, they were generally fairly low. Today, they are quite high, a relatively middle class person like an engineer or miner could see most of their income go to the government.
World War 1 changed everything in terms of taxation. Prior to World War 1, income taxes in the UK maxxed out at around 3%, and in the US and Canada there were no income taxes at all. The government funded itself entirely from other forms of taxation. So for people living under governments that can tax over half of their income today, these are oppressive tax levels, and despite these oppressive levels of taxation all 3 countries have racked up massive increases in their debts in the past 25 years.
When you're imposing oppressive levels of taxation upon your people, and you're still racking up massive amounts of debt, that isn't austerity. It's the exact polar opposite of austerity, it's largesse.
Debt grew from about 30% of gdp in 2000 to over 100% of gdp today. Almost half of all the money spent in the economy comes from the government, and at its peak more than half the money spent in the economy came from government.
The question isn't about austerity because the government hasn't been austere (virtually no government on earth has been which is why despite devastatingly high taxes governments have also been racking up massive debt). The question is where is your money going?
There is no political party in most governments who are willing to be austere. That would mean laying off billions of pounds worth of bureaucrats and shutting off billions of pounds worth of pet projects, and even the tories aren't willing to do that.
Historically, income taxes are something of an aberration, and even when the UK implemented them in 1842, they were generally fairly low. Today, they are quite high, a relatively middle class person like an engineer or miner could see most of their income go to the government.
World War 1 changed everything in terms of taxation. Prior to World War 1, income taxes in the UK maxxed out at around 3%, and in the US and Canada there were no income taxes at all. The government funded itself entirely from other forms of taxation. So for people living under governments that can tax over half of their income today, these are oppressive tax levels, and despite these oppressive levels of taxation all 3 countries have racked up massive increases in their debts in the past 25 years.
When you're imposing oppressive levels of taxation upon your people, and you're still racking up massive amounts of debt, that isn't austerity. It's the exact polar opposite of austerity, it's largesse.
They're generally fine right up until it gets cold.
The problem is that you need heat when it gets cold.
The problem is that you need heat when it gets cold.
Argumentum ex Sarcasmo, argument from sarcasm. Where instead of making a logical argument you just say the other person's argument sarcastically.
You can basically use it against anything. The law of gravity, for example. Just say "oh yeah! All matter is attracted to all other matter! THAT makes sense!" Then when you say you can prove it using experiments on earth they go "ooh! Look at Mr. Scientist over here, running experiments to prove stuff! Hah!"
It's ineffective logically, but possibly quite effective Rhetorically. In the current age, it's a heavily relied upon form of argumentation since people aren't taught proper rigor.
One big problem is that arguments that have no substance can be applied equally to all sides of an argument. "Oh! A! Yeah, totally! Definitely A (what a moron)" vs. "hah! No for sure not A! (Get a load of this guy!) Yep not A for sure! Who would possibly believe A? Lol"
It's absolutely toxic. Instead of properly engaging with ideas we disagree with, we usually end up just using sophistry to dismiss them. It's no wonder our political debates have gotten tribal, since nobody needs to engage with ideas and instead can just use universal tactics to protect or attack whatever hodgepodge of ideas your tribe claims to hold.
You can basically use it against anything. The law of gravity, for example. Just say "oh yeah! All matter is attracted to all other matter! THAT makes sense!" Then when you say you can prove it using experiments on earth they go "ooh! Look at Mr. Scientist over here, running experiments to prove stuff! Hah!"
It's ineffective logically, but possibly quite effective Rhetorically. In the current age, it's a heavily relied upon form of argumentation since people aren't taught proper rigor.
One big problem is that arguments that have no substance can be applied equally to all sides of an argument. "Oh! A! Yeah, totally! Definitely A (what a moron)" vs. "hah! No for sure not A! (Get a load of this guy!) Yep not A for sure! Who would possibly believe A? Lol"
It's absolutely toxic. Instead of properly engaging with ideas we disagree with, we usually end up just using sophistry to dismiss them. It's no wonder our political debates have gotten tribal, since nobody needs to engage with ideas and instead can just use universal tactics to protect or attack whatever hodgepodge of ideas your tribe claims to hold.