She gets laughed out of court. Dependents need a SSN/TIN. The reason for the concept in taxes is because the payer is taking care of the dependent rather than them being a burden of the state.
A dog would not become a burden of the state. At least not permanently. So there is no reason for the state to give someone caring for a dog preferential tax treatment. The state doesn't give a fuck about the dog's role in her life.
The only exception is legitimately disabled people with specifically-trained service animals (which are not considered pets) to deduct some expenses. Again, this is not out of the goodness of the state's heart. It is because it's cheaper than the social services would be.
so the infrastructure around it is the better investment over the centres themselves
100% You can practically never go wrong assuming that we'll need more energy tomorrow than we do today.
Someone will probably eventually come along and tell them to stop using open loop cooling, there will be some money to be made there too even if they'll use in-house solutions in the end.
Let's just do what you suggest. And the deportations. And enforcement of laws. And the elimination of no-fault divorce.
I don't really care which change does the heaviest lifting, but confident that the combination will yield an improvement.
That's fair. I think that no-fault divorce turning marriage into what it is now might be one of the biggest contributors to becoming a low-trust society. We usually focus on the demographic aspect but having to be on guard about anyone who shows interest in a relationship because the government turned you into a loot box is catastrophic for social trust.
The way you incentivize kids is mass deportations and cleaning up the streets. People had no problem reproducing when they lived in high trust societies. When our countries were allowed to turn into, "I wouldn't want a kid to grow up in this," is the inflection point.
First things first. Article seems to be from 11 months ago: https://archive.is/H2vKl
The study asked respondents to affirm or deny statements encapsulating 11 antisemitic tropes such as “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,” “People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave,” or “Jews have too much control over world affairs.” Half of those surveyed affirmed the first statement, 48% the second and 46% the third. Some 56% said that Jews are only loyal to Israel, as opposed to the countries they live in.
I'm not willing to dig deeper, but I'm assuming anything other than 11 "deny" responses would count given that it was the ADL performing survey.
We're generally talking about depictions in artwork and logos, where they have discrete bands. If we were discussing the continuous case, none of this conversation would have applied.
Nothing wrong with 12 colors, but less common.
There's an obvious cut in the footage. We don't know if any of them observed it. Hear woman making commotion, walk over. She tells you this guy slapped her toddler. Assuming you're going to get involved at all:
Option 1: Believe woman on blind faith and beat up some guy you don't know.
Option 2: Position yourself to protect the kid. Make sure he fucks off.
OP is retarded. Doing that is how you get sucked into a domestic between some dumb bitch and her, "baby daddy." If and when the cops show up, she's going to have a change of heart and tell them that you attacked her poor innocent boyfriend unprovoked.
"But there was a camera!" Do you know the position of all the cameras? Do you know they're recording? Do you know they won't be overwritten by the time someone gets off their ass to check?
Guy in the video made the right call. Priority is protecting the kid.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
The original design has perspective on the rainbow and it's also long enough that it doesn't parse as a flag. Meanwhile, the one in the circle parses as every corporate social media profile pic during pride month.
OSHA
Yes. Because "wear hardhats on site" is totally the same as having to cater to a fiefdom that constantly introduces regulation because someone might be able to tell that Klaus prefers to compose an email starting with the toolbar button instead of the file menu and thinks the penalty should be a two-digit percentage of global revenue.
Give it a rest. We're never going to see eye-to-eye. Mostly because yours point in opposite directions.
It's not a defense of "big tech." It's a defense of small tech.
Facebook and Twitter can afford massive compliance departments. Any potential new competitors can't. It's regulatory capture, plain and simple. And you go lick the boots of the government/tech partnership because they've convinced you that their monopoly is making you safer.
Did your precious crony regulations stop a single one of the things you just complained about?
Literally who the fuck are you defending here? The guys that are demanding infinite H1B imports?
Said as he defends the people importing infinite illegal Muslims and the guys demanding the infinite H1B imports.
Because it's retarded. It exists so an army of bureaucrats in Brussels can get a pat on the back every time a cookie sneaks through without a pop-up window because it means a couple more million Euros to spend on Mohammed.
It accomplishes fuck all and inconveniences everyone. I really hope the EU goes the way of China and throws up the Berlin Firewall because the rest of the world is tired of them fucking with the Internet. They can reign over their little walled-off network of subjects.
It's planned. Not the move towards China per se but in general.
- Ban something for a large group (A). There will be many complainers but the majority will still fall in line.
- Some, group B, will put in the effort to find alternatives. When you crack down on those, the people from (A - B) will not care enough anymore because it no longer affects them. This makes the crackdown easier.
- Repeat as necessary. Become more aggressive and authoritarian every time because more of the population has accepted the new status quo.
The next step will be to require all "social media" platforms to register in AU before they can be on the app stores. Then they will start expanding the definition of "social media" to include all means of communication. Every policy doubles as a trial balloon and they're always aiming for the same finish line.
Blacks enslaved black people. Everyone else exchanged them afterward. But the trade was run by the usual suspects.