|
asdf32 posted:I don't have the slightest idea [about] anything
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:But they probably sold less Caros. Over the health and safety of children? No. I also doubly don't give a poo poo because the majority of those companies were violating the law and marketing their products to children in violation of their own agreement with the government. gently caress'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Statists won't let me sell my Knives 'n' Vodka game to kids. loving fascists. Russian Roulette: A Game for the whole family. Players 1-6. As the TG thread would put it, Russian Roulette is an exciting game, though ultimately with a too strong element of random chance that takes away the fun of it. The ameritrash version with a Beretta gets rid of some of the randomness but makes the mechanics too streamlined in the process. Next you'll be telling me we can't play the knife game! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFZj_sWWtg
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Over the health and safety of children? No. I know, that was a point ASDF was making. At least I think he was, or that bit didn't seem to have any actual point to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Caros posted:Over the health and safety of children? No. You don't understand. This is all good fun for the children! https://screen.yahoo.com/bag-glass-000000237.html?query=Consumer%20probe%20costume
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Ok ok. Physical safety really is the be-all-end-all justification for government action. My mistake for proposing otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok ok. Safety really is the be-all-end-all justification for government action. My mistake for proposing otherwise. You were actually proposing something? I thought you were just being a contrarian shitheel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok ok. Physical safety really is the be-all-end-all justification for government action. My mistake for proposing otherwise. You didn't propose poo poo, you just asserted that dead children aren't a good enough measure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:You were actually proposing something? I thought you were just being a contrarian shitheel. Ding ding ding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok ok. Physical safety really is the be-all-end-all justification for government action. My mistake for proposing otherwise. You've yet to present any concrete counter argument as to why we should leave lawn darts alone. Absent government regulation we would be marketing weighted metal throwing knives to children with predictable results. With regulation manufacturers were forced to switch to a plastic varient that has resulted in no deaths or serious injuries that I can find data on. As far as I can tell, you are on the side of meaningless death and injury. You don't have an actual argument here other than "Well just because it its a children's toy that kills people doesn't mean we should ban it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Caros posted:You've yet to present any concrete counter argument as to why we should leave lawn darts alone. Absent government regulation we would be marketing weighted metal throwing knives to children with predictable results. With regulation manufacturers were forced to switch to a plastic varient that has resulted in no deaths or serious injuries that I can find data on. Because I never wanted too. What I want is for people to make good arguments on behalf of the existence of the state and it's right to regulate. "Safety!" isn't it alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Why not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because I never wanted too. What I want is for people to make good arguments on behalf of the existence of the state and it's right to regulate. "Safety!" isn't it alone. Safety is a perfectly reasonable reason for regulation. Some other examples might include driving, flying, how food is prepared, how much poo poo can be floating in your drinking water and of course wether or not it's okay to throw knives at kids. Many of the things I listed are requirements for either modern commerce or just outright surviving. Heavy metal darts that kids play with aren't essential to commerce or survival so it's easier just to say "make these out of plastic from now on." Are you trying to be the Amergin of this thread or are you really incapable of understanding these things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because I never wanted too. What I want is for people to make good arguments on behalf of the existence of the state and it's right to regulate. "Safety!" isn't it alone. Why? I really don't understand why you don't think this is a solid argument. The private market put forward a product that turned out to be far more dangerous than it was, and the state told them to gently caress right off and banned it outright. Do you think that the FDA ban on radium based eyeshadow was also pointless? Because I'm sure it really made your eyes glow, but the only argument against it is safety. Why is an example of the state looking out for its citizens in light of a private market failure not a good example of the state. Seriously, I'm all ears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
1000101 posted:Are you trying to be the Amergin of this thread or are you really incapable of understanding these things? You know how some people have red titles ironically? His isn't one of those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Why? He is being dense as usual. He is strawmanning the argument in favor of state intervention "safety protections is one of many aspects that states provide" as "safety protections are the only aspect states provide" and attacking the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:Why? Demand is essentially infinite you see, so there's infinite demand for weighted throwing knives marketed to children. E: Once again, even checking the post-history in this thread really helps cutting down on unnecessary replies beyond my "please inject yourself with bleach" suggestion. At least Jrod is entertaining. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Demand is essentially infinite you see, so there's infinite demand for weighted throwing knives marketed to children. Yeah, that is sort of true. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Caros posted:Why? Because of "information asymmetry" which was the thrust of my first response to you. Because without a warning no one would know there was radium or even that radium was dangerous or what the particular hazards of radium are. Huge swaths of safety regulations fit into this category. Other areas also come down to effort. I.E. consumers could research radium or food safety but probably won't. Instead they vote to have a board of representatives to do it for them in a way that saves time and effort and nets a better result. You can't see salmonella or radium which makes them fundamentally different and better suited to professional regulation than obvious hazards. You literally chose just about the most visible and easy to assess hazard you possibly could have. Again, that's not to say we can never ban things like this. It's just that risk/reward of obvious recreational hazards (where the reward is particularly hard to assess) will always be incredibly subjective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because of "information asymmetry" which was the thrust of my first response to you. Because without a warning no one would know there was radium or even that radium was dangerous or what the particular hazards of radium are. The fact that it ought to be evident but was not evident to many people is, despite what you think, actually the ideal example for why we need government regulation. Everybody with two neurons still firing agrees that it should be illegal to put arsenic into breakfast cereal. It's these fringe cases where many people accidentally cause themselves needless injury (like lawn darts, seat belt use, anti-vaxxers, raw milk) that truly demonstrate the pressing need for government oversight. It's trivial that the dangers of these things are not immediately evident to plenty of people, which is why their regulation was called for. These regulations didn't spring out of thin air, but from an obvious need. Do you have any examples of things that are regulated, but shouldn't be? That might be a more helpful way into this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because of "information asymmetry" which was the thrust of my first response to you. Because without a warning no one would know there was radium or even that radium was dangerous or what the particular hazards of radium are. Parents could research lawn darts and find out that they caused thousands of deaths. Except they wouldn't because it would be time consuming and incredibly difficult to gather data on what would largely be individual instances of injury or fatality across the entire country. Instead they are better served having representatives do it for them, which they did, and make a decision based on the risk/reward of whether it was worth it for society to continue to okay the selling of weighted, sharpened throwing objects to children for use as loving toys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The fact that it ought to be evident but was not evident to many people is, despite what you think, actually the ideal example for why we need government regulation. Everybody with two neurons still firing agrees that it should be illegal to put arsenic into breakfast cereal. It's these fringe cases where many people accidentally cause themselves needless injury (like lawn darts, seat belt use, anti-vaxxers, raw milk) that truly demonstrate the pressing need for government oversight. Recreational drugs. Caros posted:Parents could research lawn darts and find out that they caused thousands of deaths. Except they wouldn't because it would be time consuming and incredibly difficult to gather data on what would largely be individual instances of injury or fatality across the entire country. Instead they are better served having representatives do it for them, which they did, and make a decision based on the risk/reward of whether it was worth it for society to continue to okay the selling of weighted, sharpened throwing objects to children for use as loving toys. Youre saying they need research to conclude sharp objects are dangerous? I'm saying they don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Recreational drugs. Just to clarify, do you mean that these should not be regulated, or should not be illegal? I agree with the latter, but the former is... well. quote:Youre saying they need research to conclude sharp objects are dangerous? I'm saying they don't. History says they did. It's a fact, it's not really arguable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Youre saying they need research to conclude sharp objects are dangerous? I'm saying they don't. Yes. Because history shows us that parents bought these things as toys for their children since they were marketed as such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Youre saying they need research to conclude sharp objects are dangerous? I'm saying they don't. So, what do you have to say when that clearly didn't happen? People expect that the products they buy be safe, because we assume rationality in others. We assume that people won't put dangerous products on the shelf. And when the system fails, we need to step in and fix the problem. In the case of lawn darts, the previous regulations had failed to prevent the bad ends. You are actually an idiot. You see a problem, and your response is "Well, this shouldn't be a problem at all, so we shouldn't do anything about it." asdf32 posted:Because of "information asymmetry" which was the thrust of my first response to you. Because without a warning no one would know there was radium or even that radium was dangerous or what the particular hazards of radium are. Nothing you're saying here makes any sense. You are aware of that. It is easy to weigh the risk/reward of recreational hazards. If people can be harmed or killed, we should take measures to prevent that from happening. Is this a risk that's inherent to the activity, or is this a risk that can be mitigated while still allowing the activity to continue. Metal tip darts don't improve the gameplay over plastic-tipped darts. Helmets don't make riding a bicycle less practical. Edit: For example, if you want to talk recreational drugs, I know plenty of people who think drugs should be legal who say "stuff like heroin should be illegal though." They realize the risks of taking the drug outweighs any benefits of it being legal. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:You've yet to present any concrete counter argument as to why we should leave lawn darts alone. Absent government regulation we would be marketing weighted metal throwing knives to children with predictable results. With regulation manufacturers were forced to switch to a plastic varient that has resulted in no deaths or serious injuries that I can find data on. It's not meaningless, it keeps 'em sharp! Teaches 'em to respect dangerous things! Well some of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Edit: For example, if you want to talk recreational drugs, I know plenty of people who think drugs should be legal who say "stuff like heroin should be illegal though." They realize the risks of taking the drug outweighs any benefits of it being legal. And there's a huge difference between these three statements: "The war on drugs should be less draconian," vs. "All drugs should be legal but regulated" vs. "All drugs should be legal and unregulated." Since we're talking about regulation, I can only assume asdf means the latter, which is not something that anybody I know really agrees with. Everybody who's into hard drugs knows people who have been hosed up by bad poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not meaningless, it keeps 'em sharp! Teaches 'em to respect dangerous things! Well some of 'em. People are learning. Well.. Not the ones who are using the lawn darts. But the people who see them are learning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
In an ideal society, I would hope that recreational drugs would be extremely well-regulated. I don't want to snort some cocaine only to discover too late that it was cut with a bunch of bleach, I want that poo poo to be subject to strict quality control before it reaches my nostrils.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
This is from two pages ago before the great lawn dart debate of 2015 really picked up steam (gonna go out on a limb here and guess asdf is also one of those people who thought it was totally outrageous when that woman sued McDonald's for having hot coffee) but seriously, what the gently caress:jrodefeld posted:If the State of Texas is violating your rights, I naturally oppose that on principle. I'm sure you'll recall that decentralized States are not the end goal of any libertarian. The fact that one political unit is oppressing you versus another is not that important. It is the violations of your rights that are important. I support decentralization so that libertarian policies can start to gain traction and be implemented at the local level. I would advocate that EVERYONE follow suit. You talk a lot about how you would advocate for non-discrimination, but it doesn't seem that important to you. In fact, you only seem to even be willing I admit it's wrong when it's pointed out how many new problems minorities will face in New Free Texas, and even then it's obviously not as great an injustice as paying taxes in your mind. quote:If different States seceded, then some states like Texas might adopt draconian policies in some instances. But the trade-off would be that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to oppress you in other ways. We would never have had the Iraq War for example. Or the Drone Program that has killed thousands overseas. I think it's time we actually stop letting libertarians have the Iraqi War and the drone program as examples of the tyranny of the state. Let's be honest; they're not actually opposed to PMCs or even drones being used locally to stop crime or whatever, they just don't want those things paid for via taxation. quote:This is not great consolation for people who become oppressed by their local government, but this is only the first step to a freer society. It is not the endgame. If Texas seceded and then outlawed abortion and gay marriage, then I'd support gays and pro-choice women moving to a more pro-liberty state while at the same time doing everything to encourage and promote pro-liberty reforms to the Texas state government. On the other hand, Texas would probably have no state income tax and more economic freedom than some other states. It would be a trade off in terms of liberty. I like that you willingly admit here that a stateless society would be less free for many people in many very big ways, but then handwave it away because no taxes and that's the most important thing. quote:But what If I created a State-less libertarian free market society while you created a working anarcho-syndicalist society? We could proliferate better ideas about governance and people could vote with their feet and move to one of the freer and more prosperous states. Everyone else has brought this up, but; if voting with your feet is a legitimate way to show a state you disapprove of them, why haven't you? Is it a question of scale? Is it too much effort? Is it because you enjoy the comfort and security living in the state brings and don't actually want to lose that? I guess we'll never know (it's that last one). quote:What it DOES mean is that by moving you create one less tax payer (if your state has taxes) and one less economic participant which reduces the state revenue and economic prosperity of that state. This sends a signal. So now New Free Texas does have taxes? What? So even in your ideal scenario, the first step is breaking up into smaller decentralized states, destroying any benefit of the federal government and actively and admittedly making many peoples lives harder and there's still a good chance you'll end up paying tax? Do you even want to live under this system, jrode? quote:Look, this is not a perfect solution. But we are living in a world of centralized and very oppressive States. We don't have freedom now and our rights are continually violated. In the large picture, secession and decentralization are an important first step of a strategy to break up these entrenched monopolistic political power centers to move towards a more free world. It is true that some territories that secede may enact oppressive policies that limit rights in a way that they are not limited currently. But on balance, I think we will gain more than we lose. I mean if Texas passed a law mandating prayer in school I'd think "wow, that is really loving stupid law." However I am not going to live their and I'm sure most of you won't either. So it won't affect us. If the Federal Government institutes a law like this it will affect all of us without question. Literally everything you outlined in this post suggests a nightmarish scenario wherein the South descends into a backwards, ultra-religious enclave where the only recourse the unfaithful have is to flee hundreds of miles to escape, and your only defense is that if the federal government did the same thing you'd have to flee even further. Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Literally everything you outlined in this post suggests a nightmarish scenario wherein the South descends into a backwards, ultra-religious enclave where the only recourse the unfaithful have is to flee hundreds of miles to escape, and your only defense is that if the federal government did the same thing you'd have to flee even further. Sometimes I wonder if modern Libertarians aren't primarily people who played too much World of Warcraft and think that the real world is a place of strict rules, where there is one optimal solution to every problem, if only they had the right spreadsheet for it! I men, all of the discussion of rationality, of "sending economic signals"—the signal that's sent by a black family moving out of the Klandestine Konfederacy of Karolina is not "oh no, we're out a few productive members of society!" it's "good, lynching works." Libertarianism could hypothetically work in a world where everyone's primary goal is to maximize their financial profit, and where everyone knows and understands and agrees upon a strict set of rules... but that's not the world that exists. The rules are incredibly complicated, people are incredibly stupid about most things, and emotions trump reason most of the time (of which there's been an abundance of in this thread, like, say, every time jrode tries to defend HHH or Rothbard's reprehensible opinions).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:
Right so by comparison if a game is called "lawn darts" and has a picture of children throwing pointy objects on the box we should make sure that's exactly what they get! Cemetry Gator posted:So, what do you have to say when that clearly didn't happen? People expect that the products they buy be safe, because we assume rationality in others. We assume that people won't put dangerous products on the shelf. And when the system fails, we need to step in and fix the problem. Or to put the emphasis elsewhere you and your friends want people to be able to access hazardous substances like alcohol even though there are statistics showing its numerous dangers. You're willing to allow this despite it being purely recreational and despite the fact that a subset of the time it falls into the wrong hands or the people making bad choices with it harm others including children. You think this but think banning a lawn game is clearly non-contentious statistically based regulation? Let me re-iterate, there are much better examples of good regulations. Caros posted:Yes. Because history shows us that parents bought these things as toys for their children since they were marketed as such. I strongly contend that bike accidents don't indicate that parents didn't know the risks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Sometimes I wonder if modern Libertarians aren't primarily people who played too much World of Warcraft and think that the real world is a place of strict rules, where there is one optimal solution to every problem, if only they had the right spreadsheet for it! I men, all of the discussion of rationality, of "sending economic signals"—the signal that's sent by a black family moving out of the Klandestine Konfederacy of Karolina is not "oh no, we're out a few productive members of society!" it's "good, lynching works." Libertarianism could hypothetically work in a world where everyone's primary goal is to maximize their financial profit, and where everyone knows and understands and agrees upon a strict set of rules... but that's not the world that exists. The rules are incredibly complicated, people are incredibly stupid about most things, and emotions trump reason most of the time (of which there's been an abundance of in this thread, like, say, every time jrode tries to defend HHH or Rothbard's reprehensible opinions). The NAP is pretty much how WoW's PvP worked from what I remember, so you might be on to something. He can't aggress against me, I haven't switched on my economic exploitation flag!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
I think lawn darts is literally the best case for regulations out there. Its so black and white and simple. If you want an example, that is what you shoot for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
jrod, this is kinda why people think you don't give a poo poo about minorities and are kind of bigoted. Because you admit that there are trade-offs with independent Texas, yet for some reason you think criminalizing gay people and women's health care are an acceptable trade-off for somewhat lower taxes. And let me emphasize somewhat lower Taxes, because guess what: Texas still has taxes. Independent Texas will still have taxes. The politicians that get elected in Texas are in favor of taxes. There's no income tax, yeah, but what that means is that poor people pay the greatest percentage of their income in taxes while the rich pay the least. quote:A High Tax State for the Poor While Texas’ state and local taxes average 9.1 percent of income, differently positioned taxpayers experience Texas’ tax system very differently. For the top 1 percent of Texas households (a group with an average income over $1.3 million), the Lone Star State’s decision not to levy a personal income tax has indeed been an enormous boon. This group pays just 3.2 percent of their income in Texas taxes—the 9th lowest (or 41st highest) state and local tax bill for this group in the entire country. Sales taxes are of course the obvious major contributor to this, because poor people have to spend a greater portion of their income on necessities that the rich do not: more than 8% of a poor person's income goes to pay sales taxes alone in Texas compared to just over 1% of the rich. Kind of hard to build up the capital necessary to innovate and start a business when people who are trying to make it are taxed at higher rates than people who already made it, wouldn't you say? Maybe a bit stifling of innovation and economic mobility? And then there's property taxes which ordinarily are progressive, but in Texas are not because businesses have gotten politicians to write laws that make it very easy to win challenges of property value assessments, which is of course only worthwhile if your tax bill is high enough that the savings outweigh the cost of litigation. And challenge these assessments is what the rich do now, because the provision says that if your property is assessed above the median of similar properties you can sue to have it reduced to the median. Now any middle-schooler can immediately see what will happen: if your assessment is at the high end and you get it reset to the median, this lowers the median assessment value and now new higher-assessed people can sue to have their assessment lowered to the new median, which pushes the median down further, and we get a ratcheting down of property values. But only of course, if you own enough land to make the savings worth the litigation. For the average middle-class homeowner, the savings would not begin to justify the cost of the research and the court case. Texas is not some low-tax paradise of economic freedom! It is the exact type of crony capitalist state you claim to abhor, in which the rich put all the tax burden on the poor and middle class and use their greater leverage over the state government to write laws that entrench their own position and power while the cost of running the state falls on everyone else and hobbles their ability to rise economically and compete with the established upper class. And of course, the racist laws and disenfranchisement that Texas will adopt by themselves blow your claim that Texas will have more economic freedom out of the water because disenfranchising minorities and burdening poor (and thus mainly minority) women with restrictions on contraception and abortion, and limiting educational and economic opportunities for the poor and minorities keep the poor and minorities poor. The only type of economic freedom the Republic of Texas will have is the freedom of the rich to write unequal laws and slant the playing field in their favor. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Hey asdf32, come back when your argument against statistical data is better than anecdotes about how you played those games and it's fine. E: asdf32 posted:I presume the technology for plastic yard darts existed in the 60's and 70's but I also presume they were less popular and effective - unless I'm missing the dark motivation leading the manufactures to deliberately impale children. Ahahaha you're complaining that the injury statistics didn't justify the regulators' decision to ban steel darts in favor of safer plastic darts enough to satisfy you, but your only case for steel darts is "I presume they were less popular and effective". Hey where's your market research on that. Oh, you don't have any, but "you presume". Hey consumer protection agency, hold up, you forgot to consider that this guy presumes something. Oh and I'd say that going back on their own agreement to put safety warnings on the package to fully inform consumers that they should make sure unattended children can't get to them is pretty good evidence that they deliberately placed profits above safety. Because the only reason to disregard their agreement to label them is they thought a safety warning would hurt sales which shows that consumers weren't fully informed and there was an information assymmetry. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Reminder: Jrod has explicitly stated that he doesn't give a gently caress about income inequality. But don't worry, his cavalier dismissal of the downtrodden is only "in the abstract," so I'm sure he'll engage with your post substantively and honestly and totally not blow it off or cite Pareto again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey asdf32, come back when your argument against statistical data is better than anecdotes about how you played those games and it's fine. I've never had "fun" before but I hear there are ways to have it that don't involve drugs and alcohol. People sometimes wake up with a hangover which obviously indicates to me that they didn't understand the risks they were taking and alcohol produces [data] accidents and deaths (per year or century or something). You must champion any government policy I propose aimed at reducing alcohol and drug deaths if you support data and children. -asdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Or to put the emphasis elsewhere you and your friends want people to be able to access hazardous substances like alcohol even though there are statistics showing its numerous dangers. You're willing to allow this despite it being purely recreational and despite the fact that a subset of the time it falls into the wrong hands or the people making bad choices with it harm others including children. People can still buy [plastic] lawn darts. You may have missed this. Alcohol is heavily regulated. You may have missed this. asdf32 posted:I've never had "fun" before but I hear there are ways to have it that don't involve drugs and alcohol. People sometimes wake up with a hangover which obviously indicates to me that they didn't understand the risks they were taking and alcohol produces [data] accidents and deaths (per year or century or something). You must champion any government policy I propose aimed at reducing alcohol and drug deaths if you support data and children. Keep rolling with the punches, sport.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Yeah but he has said he cares when the rich use their wealth to buy politicians and write the laws in their favor so hopefully he'll address the fact that Texas' "low tax" status only applies to the richest of the rich, with the poor and middle class paying higher effective tax rates than the rich, and even higher rates than the poor & middle class in "high tax" states like California. And of course this will get worse if federal money goes away because Texas will need to make up that revenue and judging by the current situation, we know who will be paying most of that and it ain't the ones who benefit most from the end of federal income tax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:17
|
|