Anybody who speaks up for whites publicly is sued I to bankruptcy by you know who. What were we talking about again?
That's the "logic" in giving them work permits.
I know the west coast uses a lot of wood because of earthquakes. Seems crazy, though. I thought most apartments were made of concrete and rebar.
How about we forcibly remove them from the squalid hellscape they've created and place them into inpatient rehab and/or mental asylums, as needed.
That's the only thing I can think of.
How about we forcibly remove them from the squalid hellscape they've created and place them into inpatient rehab and/or mental asylums, as needed.
I don't know about libertarians -- I haven't identified as one in years -- but I would not say it's anti-liberty to get rid of homeless people. They are constantly harassing other people. It's the opposite of leaving other people alone. You can have an argument over what behavior is tolerable in public -- perhaps panhandling is as much free speech as political protest. But limits on behavior should be ok in any philosophy.
A lot of this can't be done because of blacks. Their rate of mental illness is way higher than whites, and frankly it can be hard to tell the difference between mentally ill and just low IQ. If you put people away based on behavior -- a fair system in other words -- nonwhites will be disproportionately effected, and SJWs will lose their shit. That happens with criminal justice, but at least those people are being put away for serious crimes. We're talking about putting people away based on a diagnosis. It's not a bad thing to piss off SJWs. But we even have SJWs among Republicans. GL getting women to sign off on pre-emptively locking up a shitload of crazy joggers.
It's just another thing that shows how complicated homelessness is. These people can't live near anyone else. They'd burn the apartment block down. Before you can even think about housing these people, you have to figure out how to change their behavior.
Him an everyone in Brazoria county for a long time. For a while Dr Paul was the only obgyn that served the county, which is one reason he kept working at home while working in government.
The way that government reimburses for medicaid, which ends up paying for most births, certain rural places are kind of no-go zones. They pay wendy's rates cuz they claim it's a shithole, but the actual costs are similar to nearby big cities.
I am not an expert on this, but don't you have to become a gun dealer to acquire some of those items? I don't see that as a reasonable regulation, even if it is easy enough for people to get around.
If you have to become a dealer to get one, even just nominally, I see it as a ban. No provision is made for people who just want to acquire one for defense.
Yes and given that you can actually own most of that shit after huge taxation, there is an argument they're just collecting taxes. However, I don't understand how that justifies the outright ban on more recent machine guns.
And if you keep doing it we'll fine you a second time!
FBI guy vs big-mouth Mayor. IDK
We already don’t have anonymous voting, we have secret voting - we know who voted but not how they voted.
Good point.
When you preserve that property, even, it prevents you from following up on the vote. What you want is some way to verify that your vote was not only counted but where it was counted. And a related item that the other votes can be attributable to real people.
Basically, if people want to avoid voting in person then they have to provide some other token of their identity. I don't trust signatures, and no one should when they're read by state workers. If they were read by banks, they could be pretty effective. But why even rely on something so... analog and human?
This was what they tried to do with the Arizona canvas which is the only such attempt I'm aware of. In Arizona, they found much to be suspicious about.
People can be honest, but they also have to be self-made. I don't know that there's a way around this. Therefore, you're talking about paying the well-off. That's the only problem I have with it. Otherwise, I agree with you that higher salaries are far preferable to bribes.
Around here the government tells you what the value of your home is. You can challenge it. But if err to the low side, you don't. And they do often enough err in various directions. They're government.
However, I think properties like Trump was owning in NYC are evaluated quite differently, not to mention trying to put a value on Mar a Lago which is nearly impossible.
Well yeah if nothing else prices in DC don't look like the rest of the country. Though everywhere increasingly follows.
It becomes a problem of it's still not enough to keep them from getting bribed, and at the same time you enrich terrible people on the taxpayer dime which is, naturally, unpopular. Even if it's not, as I mentioned in another post, a drop in the Federal budget.
You can't realistically restrict a job to people who haven't figured out some way to benefit from it. The people have to police their representatives.
There's also really no way to make it so that average joes can run for office. MOst people gotta work. And I don't think that's always been a terrible thing. People complain about the geriatricness of the Congress, but originally you wanted to err on the side of wisdom. People retired at 55 or younger, if they lived, and at that point could become a full time statesman. It's just that people live so damn long now.
Some businesses raised prices 20% and also raised wages 20% and also their (nonlabor) costs went up 20%. If you can afford to basically pass it on, you do that. I just mention that because I saw an awful lot of that passthrough. Small business, I guess, though.
That stuff would just be used by the dishonest to attack their opponents.
Texas used to pay state legislators like 8 dollars a day or something. lol
They probably never increased their own pay in a hundred years.
I’d have one of my minions do the paperwork for me on the taxpayers dime. That’s $50k over the course of a typical legislative session and all I’ve got to do is sign.
Well, yes, they also get paid staffers who can, among other things, file an expense report. This is why I mention it's probably not even worth the time these people would spend to collect receipts. Just give em the 200 dollars a day. At worst it will be the least consequential mistake congress has made this week.
And then hopefully these staffers we pay for can help the good guys.
Yea I don't care if they pay a per diem to the elected guys every day and they spend it on booze. Bigger problems. Honestly, the paperwork isn't even worth the time at that rate.
Not only harvesting, but people claim to be dropping off ballots for their immediate relatives, which is allowed. It becomes plausible that someone could have 8 relatives who all live together and give them the ballots.
This is why you can't combine anonymous and remote voting. You can have one or the other along with security. You can have illiterate people all vote once on the same day by marking their fingers like they did in Iraq (or some similarly simple method of tagging a person that's harmless and goes away after a day). I don't know what people want, but it doesn't have to be sophisticated. It could be, though. I think you just have to give up anonmyity.
If you give up anonymity, elections can actually be followed up on. When you find a dead person has apparently voted, you can track that down, because you don't just take envelopes stuffed anonymously into a box. So there's your privacy out the window, but it would shore up elections real quick.
Either side would pay Netanyahu, but I suppose Biden seemed pliable. You know Trump, he would have tried to strike a deal with the Jews.
Well, certainly ask them rather than me.
Nobody makes war in the Americas without the US's sayso. Arguably, standing armies do them limited good. They can't invade their neighbors, and their neighbors can't invade them -- unless the US OKs it. The US is willing to back up its position with invasions.