Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick
Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."
He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
Its entirely possible that whichever candidate will get the nod had his wikipedia fixed up a couple of months ago, to avoid notice of this. The other candidates fixing theirs up might just be window dressing in case there is a problem with the first candidate and they need a replacement.
Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wikipedia locked articles for controversial subjects. And what is more controversial than a politician come election period.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Great, now that's two missing tax returns.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Quick! Someone go make 200 edits to David Duke's Wikipedia entry!
Well... every smartass has to point out there is some bad information in Wikipedia. The GOP should be right at home there.
Rob is probably one Portman that you don't want to see naked and petrified.
This is most assuredly false as Mitch Daniels has been named to head Purdue University starting in January.
A education-hating man that pulled all the funding he could out of Indiana's great University system... named president of a University. Welcome to 2012.
Gee... I wonder how Reid could be proved wrong???
There has to be something bad in there if he's willing to go through the huge amount of political damage.
I reckon Wikipedia should start semi-protecting all those pages, so the random staffers can't create new accounts and remove embarrassing contents.
It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Tannenbaum maintains an election model that currently predicts an Obama win (334 to 206 electoral votes) http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Was that a duck?
Tea Party --> Freedom from government and lawyers
SOPA --> More power to government and lawyers
Wikipedia opposes SOPA, tea party supports Wikipedia??
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Also, as an aside, I think Reid is traveling a dangerous road. Do we really want our political leaders decided on baseless rumors, guilt until the target proves innocence, and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading? Really? Because that's where Reid is going in service of the Obama campaign, and the immediate reaction on Twitter (thousands of tweets claiming Reid is a pederast, with as much evidence as Reid produced) may look funny now, but won't look all that funny when we reach the logical conclusions of such tactics.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Or hire a firm in China that will clone him and ship his clone to America. The clone will be from the south though...
Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.
Reid is going down the path the birthers laid for him. I find it funny that now the republicans suddenly have a problem with people calling for what should be public records.
It is not a good thing when either tribe does it, but this is what tribalism leads too.
Personally the fact that investment income is taxed at such a lower rate is something the public needs to hear about. This is why you hear of CEOs taking $1 salaries, because they prefer to be paid in ways that avoid the taxes on income. Reid's current course of action is not how to have that discussion though.
...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
Is it a revealed work or intelligently designed? I think we can rule out being intelligently designed. That leaves us with a revealed work. Also the deletionists have made a nice apocrypha of wiki pages. So. GOP was taken over by religious nuts awhile back and they like a revealed work, surprise surprise.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Ever since they realized they could "Change history" by editing the facts to match Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride.
I'm wondering who Obama's running mate will be.
Dark Reflection
Reid will not comment on the matter unless he his on the floor of the Senate. This is because Reid is protected from being sued for telling a lie as long as he is on the Senate floor. You wont see him repeating his lies on the Sunday shows because he can be personally sued for making false statements.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Do we really want our political leaders decided on baseless rumors, guilt until the target proves innocence, and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading?
You mean like Obama isn't an American citizen because he doesn't have an original birth certificate? That kind of baseless rumors, guilt until proven innocent and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm sure Reid has inside knowledge -- after all he IS a high-ranking member of the LDS Church and has many friends who would know more about the Romney situation. Obviously he can't have access to the tax returns themselves (that would be a felony) so he can't produce any "evidence" but John McCain (who HAS seen the returns from when Romney was being considered for VP in 2008) has stayed mum on the subject which strongly implies that he knows a little more than we do.
As a proud Tea Party supporter I have to inform you that I am pro gay marriage, sorry to shatter your delusion. Less government means less government across the board, leading to greater freedom for ALL.
As opposed to your little ad hominem?
I am no paid shill, nor does the USA have socialists in power and I went to both public and private schools.
Way to be wrong on pretty much all accounts.
Good for you, now go talk to the ones holding the "Keep government out of medicare" signs about that.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom. Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.
Really competent, intelligent, honest people cannot run for political office. This is especially true of the presidency. For many, many years, the choice has only been who is least destructive. That keeps getting harder as the quality continually drops and the corruption rises. We are manipulated into thinking we have a choice but we don't. Anyone have any suggestions for a decent country to move to?
Whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP picks to 'run with Romney' will never be heard of in presidential politics again, once Millard "Mitt" "He's a mormon (not that that really matters (of course not)) shh!" Romney loses.
It was inevitable that Romney would 'win' the candidacy and it is inevitable that he will lose the race. No one could have beaten Obama outside of Reagan so the GOP took good ol' Mitt out, shined him up, and ran him as their idea of a 'equality' candidate. The GOP stance is that every religion is equal and now they've proven it by running a Mormon in a race where no one could win. Mitt will walk away a little bruised, ghost-write some books, and fade into history and all those Mormons will stay in the GOP camp because the GOP 'had the balls' to run a Mormon candidate.
This is all just a game. You people aren't even players -- you're the pieces.
Don't vote, it just encourages them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Christie&diff=506340909&oldid=506335481
What law prevents gay marriage? Answer: None.
Marriage is a contract that a State chooses to recognize or not recognize. The federal government has NOTHING to do with it. If a state chooses to recognize a contract between two opposite sex, two same sex, or 3 same or mixed sex partners its the sates business, not the federal government.
Your view seems to be that the FEDERAL government should force states to recognize contracts of same sex marriages, but what about mixed partner marriages of all types?
For the record my opinion is that the state has the right under the constitution to decide IF it recognizes contracts and what criteria said contract cannot have. However, I would advocate for NOT recognizing ANY marriages as I don't think it is the business of the federal or state government to define what a cultural 'norm' is or is not.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
My view is based on Full Faith and Credit. You will find that in the Constitution. If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.
The federal government disagrees with your beliefs, otherwise why did it pass DOMA?
Because they are government records.
So you think that Romney didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years and the IRS just let it go?
I think I'm going to side on Reid is a moron.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
They don't.
They believe in Conservapedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Go. Read.
--
BMO
The VP's two jobs don't happen very often but when they occur it's pretty important. I wish there was more of a primary selection process for VP rather than the candidate's behind the scenes political machinations as recommended by their overpaid consultants. If the president is incapacitated then we get the VP, like it or not, who did not have to go through the primary process and be selected by the party members as the president was.
He should select Ron Paul. It would consolidate the Republican base. On the other hand, if Ron Paul runs as an independent in just a few swing states (e.g., Texas), Ron will give the election to Obama. As VP, Ron could be effectively managed, as Kennedy did with Johnson and Reagan did with Bush. Remember what Mr. Gates used to say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
However, I am talking about Mitt, a man with few political instincts. Therefore, he will pick Portman as an electoral hedge, because Rob is from the critical swing state of Ohio.
It was not dropped, use google and see for yourself.
The scumbag sheriff joe for one would not let it go, state senators and other various republican hangers on kept going with it.
What other candidates had this issue? Obama never refused to release the document, they showed a legit short version way early.
Like Social Security numbers? Like the names of embedded spies?
I agree 100%.
All states should have to recognize the others CCW permits.
SSN should be public yes, if they were used correctly it would not be a problem.
Embedded spies names should be public after a certain amount of time has passed. There should be a law that after a certain amount of maximum time all government records are public.
So you think that Romney didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years and the IRS just let it go?
There are many ways to make millions and not pay taxes. You just need good lawyers and accountants.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Full Faith and Credit didn't even apply to banning interracial marriages according to the supreme court, so precedent would not favor your opinion.
The DOMA was not necessary IMO as a state could simply choose not to recognize ANY marriages as easily as it could choose to define what it would recognize. If state A want's to recognize a contract between a man and lamp post, state B does not have to create law and provide ceremonies for those in state B who might wish to have a contract with a lamp post.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
I suspect their exact words were, "If you think you can do a better job at running this university on such a small budget...".
Besides, I think it's perfectly apt. It gives him a chance to put his money where his mouth is. If he succeeds, then American universities are horribly inefficient. If he fails, the Republican education policy will be unimpeachably shown as an abject failure.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Well, remember McCain saw something like 10+ years of Romney's tax returns during his vice-presidential vetting and decided that Sarah Palin was a better candidate for vice-president. Just think about that for a bit, Palin a better "heartbeat from the president" than Romney 4 yrs ago. What has Romney done since except campaign more for president and now hide his tax returns from public? I've read reports how there's a good chance that he DIDN'T pay taxes particularly in 2009 because of the stockmarket dive and even McCain hasn't seen those tax returns.
I want to know what he's hiding personally, and I think the issue probably will "swiftboat" Romney if he doesn't go ahead and release them ASAP...
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Idiots like you often confuse "smaller government" with "no government".
Government provides the legal context for property ownership. That's good. Government also interferes with your use of that land. That's bad.
Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.
That is the government that the Tea Party is against.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I should not have called you an idiot. My apologies. in advance.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
>>>...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
About the same time the DNC became a pro-war party.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Cool; then we can apply it to CCW licenses, too.
You need a license to go counterclockwise?
Where do you live?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Your SSN does become public. Sometime after your Death.
Christopher Schurmann 1896 Election
Charles Evans Hughes 1916 Election
George Romney 1968 Election
Barry Goldwater 1964 Election
Lowell Weicker 1980 Election
Roger Calero 2004 and 2008
John McCain 2000 and 2008
Mitt's father was questioned too when there was a chance he might become the nominee because the Romney's were from Mexico. By extension Mitt himself released his birth certificate to Reuters because questions arouse.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Being selected as a VP candidate gives that politician instant name recognition in presidential politics. Sometimes this is enough to make them an early contender for a presidential nomination in the next election (Edmund Muskie, Walter Mondale, Sarah Palin) or gives them a building block for later campaigns (FDR, Bob Dole). This is somewhat of a modern phenomenon. The age and performance of the candidate and the strength of the field are certainly factors.
You mean the tea party is against mineral and water rights?
How are those different than property rights?
Someone else owns that water, he is talking it from its rightful owner.
When what you do on your land impacts the value of my land the government should step in.
Yes. No one is saying Romney illegally paid no income taxes, but it's quite easily for him to have paid virtually no taxes relative to his income. We know Romney's IRA is an enormous $100 million + (given IRA contribution limits would either make him the greatest investor in the world or there's something unorthodox going on).
What's likely happened is that he put his shares of the Bain Capital LLC, which he was the sole shareholder, into his IRA at an arbitrary and very low value (since it's a private company the share's didn't have a market price). Then when he left Bain in 2002, the other partners of Bain Capital had to buy the LLC from Romney (because that's what holds the trademarks and such). So Romney's IRA got hundreds of millions of dollars for those shares from 2002 - 2009. Since you don't pay taxes on investments in the IRA until you retire and start taking money out, Romney hasn't paid any taxes on them. It's quite possible for him to have an effective income tax rate during those years of 1%.
Any major investor in Bain Capital would be privy to this information and have signed confidentiality agreements making revealing this information a large legal risk, hence revealing it anonymously via Harry Reid.
Like you and me, Mitt Romney gets chauffeured to the store in a tinted-out black Chevy Suburban, Secret Service agents in tow. Much like the rest of us, he procures his ears of corn and tools with a press gaggle dutifully snapping pictures.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Assuming you are replying to me, you replied to the wrong person. I never post AC.
Get an account and we can converse, until then have a nice day.
Where do you morons get the idea that the Dems are about socialism.
I support socialism more than the Dems do, in some situations anyway. In others I am far to the right of them.
I have spoken to tea party members, or as we called them before the Obama election Republicans.
For how many of them did the scandal continue after they released the documents?
Or he will succeed in saving money, and destroy the value of those degrees at the same time.
You know like all those advertised on daytime TV private colleges. They make tons of money, and sell degrees that are totally worthless. Which is pretty much the perfect outcome in the mind of any politician.
Go troll elsewhere.
The low karma is an indication to stop doing that.
How about you be quiet until such time as that you can act like an adult.
If a state chooses to recognize a contract between two opposite sex, two same sex, or 3 same or mixed sex partners its the sates business, not the federal government.
Does the Federal government give tax benefits to married people? If so, they need a definition of "married". That definition could be "as legally defined in your state" but I don't know enough about the US Constitution to know if it would be legal to have the Federal government tax people differently based on which state they live in.
Nice strawman.
Nice use of Libs, when you have no idea of the political leaning of the persons you are speaking of. Plus the personal attacks tell us the reason you are so mad is because the world is big and confusing to people with such tiny brains like yourself.
No problem. Now go ahead and explain how you value land rights but not water rights. Do you also not believe in mineral rights?
First, the political damage is not that huge. Second, it's very likely that Romney has paid little income tax, though quite large amounts of other taxes, given that most of his income is from investments, which are taxed as capital gains.
Wrong. They never cash in their investments, so they never pay that tax. They leverage their assets for cheap loans. Jobs was a master of this, as is Ellison.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
There's a difference between collecting water than runs off your house and putting up a 20 foot damn to create a reservoir and stop water flowing into the local river.
What would you do if you were down stream and your river dried up?
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
His blog is also paywalled if you've already read a few New York Times articles linked from Slashdot this month.
Yes, that kind as well.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Obamacare AKA Romneycare?
Governor Romney always maintained that Romneycare should be implemented by individual states, not as a federal tax the way Obama and the Democratic Congress did.
Do we really want our political leaders decided on baseless rumors, guilt until the target proves innocence, and purely partisan/tribal cheerleading?
Versus the current system where two trillion dollar parties backed by billionaires select two nearly identical people to run for office?
barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.
Breaking news: Brock Obama was heard singing the theme song of the TV show based on a popular dogfighting simulator video game.
You mean like Obama college transcripts and Harry Reid's tax returns?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Based on how I read the Twelfth and Twenty-second Amendments, Bill Clinton is ineligible to become Vice President because he is ineligible to become President on account of having twice been elected to a four-year term as President.
Yeah, his and Harry Reid's.
Party loyalist = useful idiot
This got modded flamebait while the post it responded to is +1. I've been noticing this recently - posts that seem to come from conservatives are getting down-modded a lot. I'm wishing I had done some meta-moderating. When I had the chance. I'm not getting the invitations to do so - perhaps because I've recently been getting negative mods for conservative comments.
Yeah, I know, this will be modded down too.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
No, in that case the government is interfering with some guy's decision to keep public property (the water, under Oregon law) on his land. And then you made up that nonsense about the EPA to further your argument. Please stop misrepresenting the facts and stop proffering your opinion as fact. It only serves to make you look foolish.
No it lets them get paid in stock, which they use to get loans against to avoid paying taxes. It really is that simple.
That is not what he was doing.
He was collecting the rain water falling on his property.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Wait....someone else owns the rainwater this man collected from landing on his own rooftop and other property?
Who, pray tell...owns the rain that hits my house??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What the states and feds should do, is allow for, and enforce across state lines...civil contracts..between two or more of ANY sexual preference, etc. This should be the ONLY legal binding contract there is.
If someone in this relationships also wants the "marriage" moniker on their relationship, let them get a church to do this....but merely having a church blessed marriage, would not hold any legal binding bonds....that is the civil contract part offered by the govt.
Let that civil contract between 2 or more people, take care of all the inheritance, insurance...etc....and that would be the same for any group of people wanting such a legal relationship, and should do away with all this controversy of marriage.
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy. The Govt is there to help enforce contracts...let's put the govt back to work doing what it is supposed to do in this case.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The wiki edits prove nothing. The real reason there are only 5 edits for Pawlenty is that he is the most boring person on the planet*. There is simply nothing to clean up behind that Marvin J. Milquetoast.
* yes, I know Al Gore invented boring politicians, but Pawlenty raised it to an art form.
John
They shouldn't have to be, but when you run for political office, there's a tacit understanding that you no longer have the degree of privacy you would have if you were just Joe Q. Citizen. Sure, you can refuse to show your tax records at that point, but your opponents and the electorate are also free to draw whatever conclusions they want from that.
The underlying point here is that political damage doesn't have to be logical, rational or, hell, even right. But damage is damage nonetheless. A lot of Republicans are really getting concerned that the longer Romney refuses the more people will assume he has something nasty to hide, so that even if it is nothing more than a bit embarrassing when and if it does come to light, he will have already put too many holes in the hull of his campaign.
Here's my advice for anyone running for public office. If you value your privacy, don't bother. They are mutually exclusive.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The birthers have been denounced by almost every conservative with any real voice.
The biggest guy on the birther side is Donald Trump. We all know he is just getting air time to increase his shows ratings so even that guy dose not really count.
If as many prominent Dems stepped up to denounce Harry as Repubs did to denounce birthers we would not really be having this conversation.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Hah! Just try to post anything even vaguely anti-Libertarian, and all the Ayn Rand types around use every mod point they can to mod the post into oblivion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Trouble is..if you start taxing the hell out of investment...that hits all of us 'normal' people in the retirement bank account.....the less tax is one thing that helps and encourages us to save and invest this way for retirement.
Are you going to be able to only target increased investment taxes on those who live on it from being wealthy vs those saving to retire on it...or maybe already ARE retired and living off those investments?
Considering that those investments have taken a huge hit, and are already constricting seniors trying to live off them...taxing them extra is going to squeeze them even harder...what's the remedy to that? How do you propose going after the few super wealthy that can get around taxes this way, without hurting those normal folks that need this investment as a way to save for retirement and try to beat inflation?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An Arizona sheriff, a reality show rich guy and a bunch of crazy bloggers?
Pretty much that is the entire birther movement. Almost all real republicans have denounced the birthers.
I just think that the democrats should all denounce Harry Reid.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Sounds like you are to the "far right" like the Italian Fascists were to the "far right".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you also support all states giving "full faith and credit" to my Pennsylvania gun carry permit?
If not, you're probably just another statist. By the way, I support removing just about all governments' ability to control marriage. It's the only way we can get the activist and politicians to shut up without losing more rights.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well as you can see John McCain's and Roger Calero's names have two dates. You can name one person who still pushes the idea in the entire country. I hardly consider that a continuing conspiracy. 6% of people don't think we landed on the moon. Sharif Joe only constitutes .00000000000000000000003% so until you reach the 6% threshold I think your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
1. Say, "I know I'll get modded down for this . . ."
2. Write a post with a conservative viewpoint.
Bang! Instant recipe for being modded up on Slashdot.
Or have a friend named Obama. GM made billions in profit and got a tax refund, guess that's okay though because they contribute to the 'correct' campaign.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
New Jersey. No left turns allowed.
Um, that's how it already works today. We have religious marriages that are performed by churches, and we have civil marriage contracts that are signed by individuals and hold legal authority. Part of every religious marriage ceremony is the signing of the civil marriage contract which gives the legal benefits in addition to whatever spiritual nature is bestowed by the ceremony. The only new thing you've asked for is the extension of the rights to civil marriage to any group of individuals. In other words, you're completely in agreement with the pro same sex marriage crowd, except that you seem to want to go further into polygamy. The rest of your post is just requesting what already exists.
Don't forget he had 3 of them on his property.. Stocked with bluegill, a boat dock, etc. and this creek is a tributary of the Rouge River, a designated "Wild and Scenic River".. Not only was he keeping the water, he was blocking fish from going upstream for spawning..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Again there is a difference between the government providing a legal structure for securing mineral rights for property owners and the government claiming those rights.
Frankly, I find the idea of the government claiming that it owns the water that falls from the sky to be offensive.
To address BenJury, Dave and others, it is irrelevant that his collection system huge, amounting to small lakes. The water apparently came from rain run off. (If he dammed a local creek, that's another thing). I reject categorically the idea that the government owns water that falls from the sky, state law or not. This is the difference between the government providing the mechanisms and abusing the mechanisms.
Besides, It's Oregon for hecks sake. It hardly ever stops raining there,.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Of course they are. Isn't that why they dumped all that tea into boston harbor?
What is the benefit of many smaller pools, as we have now with multiple insurance providers?
Above a certain size, there's enough of a base among which risk is already pooled that any marginal benefit of a larger pool is insubstantial.
What's wrong with having only one large pool, and better still, have it exist as a nonprofit entity?
Different entities can't compete to pool risk more efficiently.
Wikipedia was typed by a billion blind monkeys, right?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It is a reasonable claim based on recent federal law changes that would undoubtedly place his ponds under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Ummmm. No. Not really.
The problem doesn't lie with who's name is on the document, the problem lies with the document itself and how we, as a modern culture, look at marriage.
The idea behind marriage was originally that women were property and men owned them. The contract was for the ownership of the bride. The bride never owned anything, ever. When the man died/left/got bored the woman was cast free. When the woman died so what? Replace her. If she left, hunt her down and stone her.
Over the centuries this has changed and now we see women as nearly equal to men. The problem is that the marriage contract now reflects a legal partnership contract in that all property is considered to be owned by the partnership. That's why divorce is such a problem. Even worse is that religion has gotten involved and called the damned thing 'sacred', whatever that means, and now they say the invisible guy in the sky will get mad at us if we allow the 'wrong' types to marry.
I say flush the whole thing. If people really want to buy a house 'together' then they can form a legal partnership under a legal name and buy stuff under that partnership. Kids, being humans and all (mostly(eventually)) are a problem but maybe they can be seen as detachable employees with certain benefits. Man-man, woman-woman, man-woman -- who cares. Just sign on the line and the contract is formed. Want out? There's a clause for that.
Don't think this is sentimental enough? Try a divorce and then get back to me, or better yet try being denied benefits because the marriage contract doesn't cover you 'kind' of partnership. Sentimental partnerships are for twelve year olds. Get a lawyer.
I'd say that Bernie Sanders qualifies as a socialist. While he technically is 'in power' as a practical matter you are probably right.
Its a legal state some of whose effects are similar to effects which could be acheived through contract, and some of whose effects cannot be acheived through contract. Calling it a "contract" is misleading, at best.
Actually, as well as the state law consequences of marriage, there are federal law consequences as well. So, the federal government has quite a bit to do with it.
There's truth in what you say, but the GOP already has wiki of their own, with all sorts of misinformation.
Where do you think the water that ends up in creeks comes from?
If you create an artificial lake you don't think that might impact the water others receive?
I find the idea that you think a landowner owns the rain to be offensive, it is a public good and should be cared for by the state. My claim is as valid as yours. Ideological claims for their own stake are equally stupid.
One of those daytime private schools will sell you a degree in underwater basket weaving of the Sahara as well. The fact that is slightly cheaper is not helping.
People who go to college to learn skills just to make a living should go to a trade school, or do an internship. I went to a university and got what I wanted a real university education.
Your sig just has me wondering terribly, you didn't return the value and I'm dying to know! Unless you meant to use the assignment operator in which case the statement alone would be self documenting.
Make the taxes on investment income far more progressive than the normal tax code and suddenly it doesn't effect any of the average folks you're trying to protect. Oh but wait, this whole "increased taxes are bad for everyone" motif is just a ruse, so you were being hypothetical and not seeking an actual answer that would solve problems. Sorry, carry on.
Well, we are talking ideology here are we not?
What is the argument over the size and role of government if not a Ideological argument?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Would it be OK if I dump some smelly (like "methyl mercaptane" smelly) garbage next to your land? After all, breathing is YOUR problem, ain't it?
6% of people don't think we landed on the moon.
until you reach the 6% threshold I think your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.
So you're saying you don't think we landed on the moon?
On those merits he should have picked Natalie Portman, he might have actually won at that, I mean, who wouldn't vote that way?
A practical one perhaps?
The simple fact is someone has to manage these shared resources and so far this is best we have come up with. I would prefer to select the size of government not based on ideology and theory but sound testing. The EPA for instance is something that some are ideologically opposed to, but history has shown we must have or we will have undrinkable water and rivers on fire.
The people who own the water rights in that area.
This is long settled law.
I've been doing my research on issues and candidates for months in order to make the best informed choice possible at the voting boot. And then I discovered that I had bookmarked Uncyclopedia by mistake.
Have gnu, will travel.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
Thanks for reminding us. Also, war is peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength!
Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.
That's not intrusion, i.e. " An inappropriate or unwelcome addition, or Illegal entry upon or appropriation of the property of another. Actually, now that I think about it, the only entity I've heard of "taking" someone's land in the US for the past 200 years has been government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
As they say, the devil is in the details.
An EPA that fines and intimidates land owners based on their own ideology is just as bad as a land owner abusing his land.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I disagree, we can return inappropriate fines. We cannot reasonably do anything once a landowner has poisoned his and his neighbors land.
Please tell me how it is big government intrusion to enforce water rights, when someone diverts a river.
"Water rights" generally does not extend to all water of any kind regardless of source, unless you live in a country with a totalitarian government (or a state with one, like Colorado). Collecting rain water is not diverting a river, any more than placing fill dirt in a temporary puddle is polluting navigable water. You should make some effort to educate yourself on the topic, before Agenda 21 is fully implemented and the only property right you have left is the right to pay taxes.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What's the difference? If I own a plot on the Moon should I get rights to all the land on Earth that passes above it? If no then why not?
How it's different from mineral/water/air pollution rights?
The Sacketts will not be getting any money back.
Any casual browsing will reveal outrage after outrage from a government that behaves in a manner that reasonable people would condemn...IRS, EPA, etc.all under the cover of "it's the law". That's the problem.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If you own a plot on the moon, the moon dust that falls on it is yours.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And to call it stealing is a real stretch.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Why is it so? And can I then direct the Moon to fall on Earth and claim all the Earth as "falling moondust"?
So, just quit calling it marriage at all from the govt side....and then, problem solved.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ahh...the good old days...before all the modern problems started...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Go ahead and do it. It will be interesting to see.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I wouldn't mind modest tax increases if...
Everyone had to pay them. Even the poorest person out there working can pay at least $1 federal tax. No one working should not pay anything net.
Before raising it...by law, any new revenues can NOT be used for new spending...only to pay things off. And..like any family does that is in fiscal difficulty....CUT SPENDING.
Doing these things first...I'd be cool with modest tax increases.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.
That phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "less government" is somewhat at odds with useful idiots - the end game scenario of which is bigger government, regardless of its color.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There are many ways to make millions and not pay taxes. You just need good lawyers and accountants.
And make sure that these good lawyers don't cost you more than the tax savings...
... There's actually less evaporation in total than if the reservoir weren't built....
In the world I live in increasing the area of water surfaces increases evaporation since there is a larger surface to lose water from. Water losses from reservoirs is an important problem in areas with scarce water resources: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article46.html .
Creating reservoirs has a very considerable effect on the surrounding environment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_reservoirs . This dude wants to be free from considering the costs he places on others.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
I've never seen a beowulf cluster of Apples.
C|N>K
I'm convinced that's as fake as the flat earth society and r/pyongyang. It's people acting in an elaborate joke. No proof of this of course, but I'm skeptical that so many people who are that dumb could figure out how to turn on a computer.
First, the political damage is not that huge. Second, it's very likely that Romney has paid little income tax, though quite large amounts of other taxes...
Interesting. Normally right-wingers do not acknowledge the existence of taxes other than income taxes (virtually the only progressive tax it in the combined American local, state, and federal government revenue systems) since they are constantly decrying that 46% of Americans "do not pay taxes", ignoring the highly regressive FICA, sales taxes, etc. that cause the total tax rate of the bulk of the middle class (not just the marginal rate) to be nearly as high as that of the top 1%: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf . In fact once you get into to the top 1% your overall tax rate is lower than the brakcets just below you, and the higher you go (0.1%, 0.01%, etc.) the lower it drops.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Great, so now we need extra lawyers for all these things that are currently a fairly well understood and consistent contract between 2 people.
That'll help for sure.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
SOPA -> More power to corporations.
Tea Party -> More power to corporations.
The proper response to a whiny or stupid post is to point out why it is dishonest, whiny, or stupid. Mod downs should be used for things that are "off-topic", "flamebait", "troll"ing, or if something is rated highly and shouldn't be ("overrated"). The fact that you disagree with something because you think it is whiny or stupid is not a good reason to down-mod. (I'll agree that you should down-mod clearly dishonest stuff - but it has to be really really clear that the person is lying on purpose rather than just not realizing he has wrong information). It used to be that I would see conservative and liberal posts both get mostly fair mods with occassional deviations. Now I see more and more conservative posts getting unfair mod downs.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Please elaborate on that. As cheap as the loan may be, it still will have an above-inflation interest rate. So they will not profit much from their assets.
See what I mean. The Libertarians around here view mod points as a weapon of their holy creed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Here are some ways to make millions and not pay taxes.
Many companies pay their CEO's a $1 nominal salary. The company then takes out a $10M life insurance policy on the CEO. The CEO "borrows" money from the life insurance with a promise to pay it back later. The company forgives any money borrowed against the policy.
A company gives may perks to the CEO in lieu of a salary. (e.g. - free vacation with use of company jet, free use of mansion owned by company, free use of car owned by company, etc...) CEO effectively lives a lavish lifestyle without having to pay for it himself. The company pays the CEO in stocks and options that vest later so CEO can delay taxes on those while living quite comfortably.
The company is incorporated in a foreign nation, and pays the CEO a big salary in that nation's currency. CEO keeps salary in offshore bank account.
Was that in 1812 or 1846? The Democrats were pro-war and have been since before the GOP existed. War of 1812, Mexican War, WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam all started under Democratic administrations. AFAIK the Democratic Party has never been anti-war.
What's a sunshade got to do with rainwater collection? Or do you just enjoy posting strawman arguments?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Does that mean NASCAR is illegal in New Jersey? :P
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
So what you're saying is that Atheists can't be married? Or Atheists must pretend to believe in God just long enough for a church whose beliefs they don't share to bless their union invoking a God they don't believe exists. Does any church get to declare people "married"? If I started the Church Of Anyone Can Be Married - whose only belief is that we marry any 2 consenting adults - does that count? Or is it only certain churches? If the latter, how do you decide which churches are allowed to marry people and which can't? (And by "churches", I include temples, synagogues, mosques, etc.)
I don't see why two people going to the local courthouse can't call themselves "married." What is it about a church that makes those unions more special than non-religious ones?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They can call themselves what they want...church or not.
I'm just saying the word 'marriage' should be stricken from anything the govt. supports, instills or enforces legally.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's not fake.
It's run by Andy Schlafly. Phyllis Schlafly's son.
They really believe this stuff. You have run into Poe's Law.
"Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes." --Rational Wiki.
--
BMO
Because they built on a wetland. I fail to see the issue her. Again more people thinking they should be able to do anything and cause any damage they like because they temporarily own a piece of land. Impacting the neighbors or the next buyer is not your right.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
You can argue that government intrusion is occasionally needed, and I (as well as probably the majority of americans) would agree with you.
But in almost no circumstance does it "increase freedom". Government is about restraining people for various reasons (ostensibly for the public good), and to that end they place limits on people. The problem with your example is that in an anarchist system, you DO have the "freedom" to own land, you simply cant stop me from taking it. Government intrudes there to place limits on what your neighbor can do, by restricting them for the public good.
The danger is when you start thinking that governments GIVE freedom, because they dont. The most they can do is protect them to some degree.
Theres a good quote from CS Lewis "The Screwtape Letters" that always comes to mind in these debates:
Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn't know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.
You can explain it away, and perhaps I would agree with some of the reasons for zoning-- the point still stands, and is worth thinking about any time you feel the urge to give the government more say in your life.
If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.
Im not aware of a "reverse supremacy" clause in the constitution, could you kindly point it out to me?
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy.
Not a huge fan of the idea, but it makes a good deal more sense than trying to force churches to recognize marriages that go against their beliefs.
Conservative here.
If you look at the talk pages of virtually any page, youll see that Im not alone by a long shot in being disgusted by the smears on that site. Kindly do not imply that all right-wing / conservatives support conservapedia.
Not war! Its "Kinetic Military Activity"!
You are not a conservative.
You are a RINO if you have reasonable views. It has been this way for a while. Barry Goldwater would be called a RINO were he alive today.
The reasonable people have been chased out.
--
BMO