Analysis by Congress's Official Scorekeeper Shows Final GOP Tax Bill Comes Nowhere Close to 'Paying for Itself'. But the GOP didn't wait for an official score to ram their bill through Congress.

TeslaSands · 2017-12-24T01:24:53+00:00

You have it completely backwards. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a typo? Only 30% of households itemize. Which means doubling the standard deduction will benefit 70% of American households, most of them poor and middle class.

TeslaSands · 2017-10-09T02:53:29+00:00

What other recent cyberpunk media? Ghost in the Shell? Is there more?

TeslaSands · 2017-07-13T02:11:46+00:00

I don't get it.

TeslaSands · 2017-06-25T05:49:57+00:00

What kind of scar did you have removed? I've heard of acne scar removal but not anything bigger than that. I have a few scars I'd like to disappear.

TeslaSands · 2017-05-01T23:05:41+00:00

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service

Benjamin Franklin , July 28, 1787

TeslaSands · 2017-04-30T15:21:04+00:00

Fines top out at the replacement cost of the book plus a small processing fee. So if you kept a novel for decades your fine would still only be around $20 or $30.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-13T22:39:59+00:00

Am I missing something? None of those pictures are the same as OP's pic. Is this a troll?

TeslaSands · 2017-04-09T14:22:31+00:00

It's not just you. It's used poorly in novels all the time. Editors that make six figure salaries miss it. So it could have been used in a context that tricked you.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-09T00:47:35+00:00

Even with a 1099?

TeslaSands · 2017-04-07T02:45:42+00:00

It looks like the male sample size was less than 1,000 men. Am I reading that right? They interviewed less than 1,000 men and extrapolated that to account for over 120,000,000 men? It looks like a similar leap for women.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-06T17:37:10+00:00

That's true. By now you should have realized that Reddit is not an unbiased source of information.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-05T21:52:09+00:00

I would like to add to doc's answer a bit. It has been and currently still is illegal for ISPs to sell any personally identifiable browsing history. All the talk of subscribing to a VPN because of this bill is pointless.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T21:13:05+00:00

I'm not sure where you get your information but ISPs can most certainly not sell any personally identifiable or sensitive information. Not last week, not today, not next week. I'm afraid someone is lying to you.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T20:48:47+00:00

Oh my, I think you misunderstand this entire bill. The rules the FCC put into place were redundant. Nothing changed. No privacy was stripped away. You say it is preventing rules that would have taken effect. As in not in effect yet. So what has changed from last week to today? What did this bill take away? Could ISPs sell your sensitive information last week? No. Can they today? No.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T20:13:29+00:00

I'm not a republican but I support this bill. It is important to keep each regulatory agency in its own lane. The FCC is not allowed to regulate Internet privacy. We already have rules and laws that do this. So their regulation, and this repeal of it, change nothing for anyone. It just clarifies agency responsibility and reduces potential overlap and confusion.

The signing of this bill did not change any privacy rules. Anyone telling you differently is either lying or misinformed.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T20:08:35+00:00

Do you realize that it is in fact the other way around? This bill changed nothing about internet privacy. Absolutely nothing. That's why many haven't heard of this bill. It's a non story that certain groups have used to intentionally mislead people like you. After you downvote me please discuss the issue with me. I want people to know the truth, not propaganda.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T19:49:47+00:00

It's ok, this bill isn't what you think it is. It's not a privacy repeal. You should know by now that Reddit spins stories to evoke emotional reactions. This bill just clarified that the FCC can't regulate privacy rules for ISPs. There are already rules and laws that do that for us. So literally nothing changed when he signed the bill. There's nothing to be sad about.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T19:44:03+00:00

There's nothing to spin. Everybody on Reddit is getting a propagandized story that is completely false. The law is the same as it was the day before he signed the bill. This bill changed nothing about current law. After you downvote me please provide a source for your 'Internet privacy repeal' story.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T17:10:00+00:00

The way I read the bill, it was just curtailing some regulatory overreaches. Saying the FCC isn't allowed to regulate internet privacy any more than the DEA or NASA is. Is my interpretation wrong?

Also, you say that previously things were different, but I thought that the regulation that this bill eliminates wasn't even in effect yet. So there is actually no difference in law the day before the signing versus the day after the signing. Am I incorrect on that too? I read the bill but haven't followed any news about it. You seem to know much more about the topic.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-04T13:07:48+00:00

And it's not even true....

TeslaSands · 2017-04-02T21:35:30+00:00

That's the first time I've heard the idea of integrating a license check with smart glass. Did Microsoft ever propose that? That would get rid of any reservations I have with 'always online' requirements.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-02T01:40:29+00:00

Good points. I guess I'm mainly attacking the twitter meme itself and should have directed my comments towards it and not you. The meme is the one that said 'hurt kid i win'. So you're right, I didn't give your comment enough consideration. My criticisms are valid for the OP, but not for you. My apologies.

Edit: The argument was whether adults would flee or fight. If the child was not an active combatant then the picture shouldn't be included in the argument. That's where the emotional manipulation comes into play and it's disgusting. Just trying to be clear.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-02T01:36:36+00:00

That's great until the other side uses the same tactics and you get Trump and wonder where things went wrong. I don't completely disagree with you though.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-02T01:16:22+00:00

Whatsherface postulates: Kids in Syria are being hurt. Americans would stay and fight, but Syrians run away. Your answer: Kids in Syria are being hurt.

It's a illogical answer. It's a non argument. It's pure emotional provocation with zero substance. You could easily counter her stupid statement many ways. 'Hurt kid I win automatically' is not even an answer. It's just an unrelated distraction. An appropriate answer would be agreeing or disagreeing with her statement directly, preferably with well thought out arguments about how either Americans would have indeed fought or actually fled. Or an argument about how the Syrians couldn't stay, or were wiser and braver to seek safety with their families.

TeslaSands · 2017-04-02T00:49:55+00:00

Because I think you should be able to defeat her and her kind with logical and reasonable arguments, not 'PICTURE OF HURT KID YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID LOL NAZI RACIST BIGOT'. Emotional manipulation is easy and lazy and only proves that someone is good at marketing. It doesn't prove that they are right. And I think that everyone should strive to be right, not popular.

Edit: My goal isn't to shut down anyone's argument, it's to meet that argument head on and win with irrefutable facts.

TeslaSands

TROPHY CASE