and limit cars to a top speed of 70 MPH too
make the car have loud beeping noises when it reverses, like a bus/truck
She makes a good point. No law or legal document should be longer than the bible.Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said the U.S. tax code is now four times longer than the Bible. She spoke Friday at a “Countdown to Tax Day” press conference organized by Americans for Tax Reform.
“I want to point out that the tax code is four times more than our Bible. And if you look at it, not only is this impossible in terms of the size of it, but look at the fine print. It’s impossible, almost, to read,” Foxx said.
It’s not just the number of pages, she said. Given the fine print on those pages, “it belies the real heft of what we’re dealing with here.”
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code is 3.8 million words long, and there are around 774,746 words in the Bible, depending on what version is counted. That makes the tax code about 4.9 times longer than the Bible, based on word count.
In pages, however, the tax code is 57.7 times longer than the Bible. There are 73,954 pages in the tax code, while only 1,281 pages in the Bible (again, depending on the version).
Make the world idiot proof!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
how about this election in venezuela
How about we just prosecute people who back out of driveways and cause accidents.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
mr. Bieber visited the Anne Frank house today and wrote in the guestbook that he hopes Anne Frank would've been a belieber
lol.
lol.
inane little opines
what a douche. how is this punk popular? i don't get it.
wow people wanna get worked up and mad about anything
Tu Stultus Es
It has been almost a week and you still haven't made your case against killing people for political reasons, Ken. I'm eagerly awaiting your update.Macbeth wrote:
Gandhi and MLK's success was both off of the back of the cold war. Had the U.S. not had the fear of racial warfare during the Cold war and a 10th of its population picking up communism, the civil rights movement wouldn't have accomplished its goals. Secondly, Gandhi's nonviolence campaign was the last step before a full on Sepoy rebellion. One that a post WW2 U.K. would have not been able to stop especially with the inevitable support of the rebellion by the USSR. During the same period there were examples of violent resistance working such as the wars against the French in Algeria and Vietnam. I can post some historical examples of violence producing results on a domestic level if you would like.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I am big fan of nonviolence and especially nonviolent civil disobedience. I would like to debate you over this subject. Especially your statement regarding the two most prominent nonviolent protests in the last 75 years, but also the general principle. Basically you're dumb, but I can put that much more eloquently.Macbeth wrote:
I am not a fan of nonviolent protest. I think the Occupy Wallstreet group would have made some progress if they assassinated politicians and business leaders. Don't even bother mentioning Ghandi or MLK. Both of those movements were backed with a threat of violence.
As for the principle of nonviolence I am just going to quote this block of text from elsewhere that puts makes my case better than I could.You're tiny. Lets not make it personal little man.In his book How Nonviolence Protects the State, anarchist Peter Gelderloos criticises nonviolence as being ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, tactically and strategically inferior to militant activism, and deluded. Gelderloos claims that traditional histories whitewash the impact of nonviolence, ignoring the involvement of militants in such movements as the Indian independence movement and the Civil Rights movement and falsely showing Gandhi and King as being their respective movement's most successful activist. He further argues that nonviolence is generally advocated by privileged white people who expect "oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement's demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary 'critical mass.'"
Not aimed at me but I'll bite
Regardless of the cold war backdrop it would've been a terrible idea to start shooting at either Ghandi or MLK if only for the reason that there would've been no international support whatsoever (more like outrage). In regards to the decolonization post WW2, the US helped in easing/accelerating this process by openly advocating the self-governance of nations. Look at what happened in say, Indonesia, after the dutch government tried to violently subdue Sukarno's separatist movement.
I'm not a fan of the enormous generalization that's presented in the book you're quoting either. It totally ignores the unique circumstances in which various protests/militants etc. manifest themselves and how this affects their respective actions (which in turn affects state approach). Arguing in general terms that nonviolent protest is useless anywhere at any time is full on bullshit, really.
Regardless of the cold war backdrop it would've been a terrible idea to start shooting at either Ghandi or MLK if only for the reason that there would've been no international support whatsoever (more like outrage). In regards to the decolonization post WW2, the US helped in easing/accelerating this process by openly advocating the self-governance of nations. Look at what happened in say, Indonesia, after the dutch government tried to violently subdue Sukarno's separatist movement.
I'm not a fan of the enormous generalization that's presented in the book you're quoting either. It totally ignores the unique circumstances in which various protests/militants etc. manifest themselves and how this affects their respective actions (which in turn affects state approach). Arguing in general terms that nonviolent protest is useless anywhere at any time is full on bullshit, really.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-04-15 09:51:38)
inane little opines
Kobe is gonna come back better than ever. Discuss
Tu Stultus Es
ur cray
Tu Stultus Es
Charging him with a hate crime is bullshit.Authorities say video surveillance footage from an Albany Wal-Mart store shows a uniformed U.S. Army officer being attacked by a man who had verbally harassed the soldier for his military service.
Albany police released the footage after charging 47-year-old Yiqiang Wu of Schenectady with assault as a hate crime for Thursday's fight at a checkout line.
The Army captain told police that a man behind him in line began to yell derogatory comments at him about the United States and his service to the nation. Police say Wu then struck the officer several times in the face. The officer was treated at the scene.
The video shows the officer, dressed in camouflage fatigues, confronting the man before being attacked.
Wu is free on bail. It couldn't be determined if he had a lawyer.
yeah that worked really well for kaczynskiMacbeth wrote:
I am not a fan of nonviolent protest. I think the Occupy Wallstreet group would have made some progress if they assassinated politicians and business leaders. Don't even bother mentioning Ghandi or MLK. Both of those movements were backed with a threat of violence.
who strikes me really as an unsurprising role model for you.
fucking idiot, honestly
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-15 11:57:20)
kaczynski was a madman living in the forest who advocated for a system that less than 1% of America agreed with. Not the same as a large scale political movement.
use violence against innocent people to further your political beliefs and you automatically consign yourself to a demographic 1%.
you know you are going to lose an argument when it spirals into the 'paring off distinctions' rhetorical technique.
you know you are going to lose an argument when it spirals into the 'paring off distinctions' rhetorical technique.
The unibomber is equal to the Indian independence movement.
*unabomber.
and actually, yes, many intellectuals of his day agreed with his 'neo-luddite' tendencies, if not exactly in nominal support. if you'd have spent a single week of your shitty poli-sci degree actually reading 20th century political science texts, you'd know there is a huge industry of cultural critique and political science built around anti-technology and pessimism. shame you're too busy masturbating to violence and making retarded comments on internet forums. get a clue please.
and actually, yes, many intellectuals of his day agreed with his 'neo-luddite' tendencies, if not exactly in nominal support. if you'd have spent a single week of your shitty poli-sci degree actually reading 20th century political science texts, you'd know there is a huge industry of cultural critique and political science built around anti-technology and pessimism. shame you're too busy masturbating to violence and making retarded comments on internet forums. get a clue please.
A few fringe academics are not equal to hundreds of millions of people willing to die for a cause. Your academia has less of an influence than you seem to imagine.
hundreds of millions of people are willing to die for #occupyNY? you have literally lost it.
the minute someone gets killed over something like occupy - which is largely a liberal hand-wringing affair - the whole thing will dissolve into fractious in-fighting. have fun thinking it's okay to kill innocent, mind-their-own-business citizens though, because you're convinced your idea is more valid than someone else's. very intelligent.
the minute someone gets killed over something like occupy - which is largely a liberal hand-wringing affair - the whole thing will dissolve into fractious in-fighting. have fun thinking it's okay to kill innocent, mind-their-own-business citizens though, because you're convinced your idea is more valid than someone else's. very intelligent.
I was talking about the Indian independence movement. You pulled OWS out of your ass.
I disagree. Kill a handful of large political donors and you will see a pullback in political spending and a hesitation to get involved in right wing economic policy.
I disagree. Kill a handful of large political donors and you will see a pullback in political spending and a hesitation to get involved in right wing economic policy.
Macbeth did you hear about whats going on in boston right now
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 