metalslug

Well, it's not like he was ever exposed to hallucinogens in his line of work.

Teleport me to the GPS coordinates I select. Make me immortal. See, I don't ask for much.

Sure he's got stress, but the stress is only a problem if it exceeds the stress of no income. Is that what you feel the poll comes down to (i.e. which option has less stress) ? Put me in the wilderness with no food and I'm pretty sure I'd be stressed ...and I would start hunting.

Dreamdancer expressed a similar opinion in a previous thread and took a lot of flak for it. I'm just sayin'...

How exactly do "civil union" or "domestic partnership" arrangements work under US law? Does it include a legal agreement document or certificate, signed and sworn by both partners, and registered with a government department ? If not then I would still be curious how an individual would show proof of a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when applying for these benefits. If these other social arrangements are a lot less formal than marriage, would it not be easily open to abuse by "couples of convenience" ?

Unfortunately the "knock" from this kind of thing often still ends up cascading down to the bottom guy. Company directors and CEO's might still want their same nett income, and so will simply increase their gross to achieve that after tax. They afford that by tightening the company belt, lay off a few more staff, suspend wage increases, tighten production, bring in more efficient machinery to replace workers. There are not many wealthy entrepreneurs who would just resign themselves to having less income after tax, they would shift the balance where needed to compensate.

I think I'm missing something here. Married couples have a marriage certificate (well, over here they do), a legal document that either spouse can present on demand when applying for some of the rights and benefits discussed here. They can usually do this even when their spouse is not present, all they need is the certificate. What would single couples present as their legal evidence of being "a couple", especially if their partner were not present? Or is this not about being "a couple" at all? ... in which case absolutely anyone including completely single individuals would qualify for the same benefits that married couples do. In short, I would think that there are significant legal differences between married couples and single couples, that have bearing on these kinds of benefits. With regard to tax breaks; if everyone had equal tax breaks then they wouldn't be 'breaks' at all. The overall drop in tax revenue would need to be compensated.... by raising tax.

I should clarify the connection, since I have totally hijacked Kennedy's thread and my apologies to him for that. It has been suggested by some others in this thread that the poor exam results of African Americans in the DOJ exams, and possibly other exams elsewhere, are due to some type of inferiority of the examinees. It was then further added by some members that this perceived inferiority, if it exists, is due to the manner in which African Americans were historically disadvantaged. According to some, a similar system of discrimination still exists in the US today, largely due to a white majority population and government, and can therefore still be blamed for many inequalities. My angle on this is that African countries, who have endured comparatively less white majority influence than the US has in the last 300 years, are economically and intellectually disadvantaged still today. Based on the evidence that I have been exposed to, I am compelled to believe that the African American dilemma is more African than it is American. I am reluctant to refer to IQ as a direct factor since I agree with those that say IQ is not a reliably accurate measure of human performance. However; for better or for worse, something is notably different. Call it culture, values or whatever politically correct term works for you, but it is a phenomenon that does Africans a disservice, whether they be American or not.

You wait for me to correct my statement and then still manage to misquote me ? "..substantially longer periods of black majority rule within the last 300 years.." There you go, now let's play your game; Ghana March 6, 1874 to 1957 (Britain) That is 83 years of British colonialism. Who would you suppose was running things during the other 217 years? It wasn't white colonials. Would you like me to do the other countries ? It's interesting that you mention South America as having similar challenges as Africa. How did that work out? How does South America compare to Africa today? If you have ever included reading material on modern Africa in your diet, you would be aware of the widescale problems African countries continue to face even after billions of dollars in aid and other incentives, much of which dissolves away in the coffers of corrupt and incompetent governments. Africa barely even features in the syllabus of most MBA courses, being the proverbial basket case of the economic world. To what would you attribute these trends? It's not anything "inferior" of course, and so it's... culture? A culture that is in the interests of all Africans? A smart culture? You can only stand in the smoke for so long before you really need to acknowledge there's a fire somewhere.

I concede that statement, as phrased, is inaccurate. I would have done better to state that they have had substantially longer periods of black majority rule within the last 300 years than the comparable period of US history. -----DanG, Indeed. In Africa the colonials left more of the indigenous population alive. Those damn colonials ! With regard to "shaking off the British", don't kid yourself. I do not know if you have native American family, but if you do not then it's a good bet that you are as much a former colonial as I am. As Meso touched on in his post, "inferior" in this context is a subjective opinion and is a word I have not used in this thread. If western priorities are not African priorities then I'm sure Africa is right on track in the best interests of it's people.

Climate.. natural resources.. You are comparing two very large land masses with variable climate and resources. In that regard Africa is probably superior. Africa's mineral resources are well documented, the weather and environment has been described as legendary, a haven for natural wildlife and a continent described by some as the most untapped potential in the world. Colonial influence... The US has more colonial influence than any African country. Most of the US population is descended from British colonials, not so? So yeah, there's a huge difference there. Are you suggesting that Africa fell behind because there were insufficient European colonials around to give them a leg-up ?

If we could turn back time, and prevent the entire slave trade between Africa and the US from ever happening, where would today's African Americans most likely be right now? Would they be thriving in the economic prosperity and unlimited opportunities in the western African country of their ancestors' birth? The slave trade was horrendous and wrong, and I am in no way suggesting that the slave trade did anyone a favour, but I am noting that independent African countries, who have had black majority rule for centuries, and who have not been "kept down by the man", have largely failed to even approach the economic standards and living standards of most African Americans today. How is this possible? If we believe that majority racism has held African Americans back, then who has held African Africans back ?

I have only got around to this movie recently. Although I mostly enjoyed it, I did wonder just how much fiction was added to it, since there appeared to be a lot according to post-movie comments from the real players. The actual circumstances of the lawsuits and the deposition that forms the centerpiece of the movie structure, aswell as the leverage that each plaintiff has to eventually win their settlements, is very likely fiction itself, since all real-life parties signed NDA's. With non disclosure agreements in place, where does the material for the book and screenplay come from? It is entertainment, but for anyone who really wanted to know about dirt behind facebook, this is probably not the movie to find it.

IMO prison is punishment, and is very seldom related to rehabilitation. While it is certainly true that some convicts rehabilitate while in prison, I am not convinced that prison itself should take credit. There are thousands of people the world over who have, or had, suspended sentences and who have since remained clean without spending a day in prison. Conversely, career criminals exist who have spent half their lives in prison and never rehabilitate. The "point" of prison; Crimes cannot be ignored, actions are necessary to discourage crime, and to protect society from criminals. Since it would be somewhat extreme to execute all criminals, we have prisons.

(mildly NSFW)

Skydivers survive falls of more than 1000 ft every time they jump. The falling itself is harmless, it's the abrupt stop at the end that can cause damage.

Well, each runway usually has two names (numbers) depending on which end you're coming in... *cough*...

This "law" is likely to have evolved from the allergic reactions that some people may have had to the iodine content in most shellfish, which could not be adequately explained by medical science in that time.

In US terms at current exchange rates, the fuel pricing where I am works out to; $4.71 for Unleaded 95 Octane and $4.31 for diesel per US liquid gallon at sea level. Over here, fuel pricing varies per location relative to altitude above sea level. I am currently uncertain what percentage of that price is taxation and levies.

I welcome equal pay for equal work, but defining and measuring "equal work" is a point of debate. One of the core principles of economic pricing is supply and demand. An experienced engineer working a 10 hour shift alongside the janitor cleaning up around him is not doing "equal work". How do we know this? It's because you cannot swap their positions around. If both employees left the company, recruiting a new janitor of similar skill would be less of a challenge than replacing the engineer. Supply and demand. To expect to employ skilled and unskilled workers at the same wage rate would be comparable to expecting to buy platinum and copper at the same market price. The study of monkeys and other primates may well hint at the origins of some human instincts, but researchers are surely not advocating that we should continue to think or behave like monkeys?

5:30 ? You're right, that is early, especially for wine. I seldom make it home before 17:00

Uhm.. yeah.. I agree.

Political Correctness and Affirmative Action might not be entirely fair or practical for those of our generation who have (or will) made sacrifices to implement it, but it's a tough sell to convince some people that it won't work, unless we allow it to run it's course for a considerable while longer. Minorities and disadvantaged groups argue that their relative lack of success, when compared to white males, is because they were denied the same opportunities afforded to white males for many generations. If PC and AA were to be discarded right now, then the aforementioned argument, whether valid or not, will endure until the end of days. However, if PC and AA is sustained for a few more generations then it will prove itself either way. It will either prove itself to be a failure and a huge "race card" will consequently be destroyed, no longer able to be played by the left. ...or it will prove itself to be a success and parts of the world will realize an equality that the left has always claimed was possible. Even many conservatives would welcome this outcome, relieved to have their fears allayed (unless a genuinely successful individual from a minority group is something that still offends them). Either outcome has some advantages for both sides.

If René Descartes was offered a beer and had replied with "I think not !" ... would he have ceased to exist ?