Well, that depends, who is giving more to Obama's campaign, AT&T or Verizon. Whichever does so, he will pass a tax on those who do not buy their service in his next term, right after he passes the tax for not buying a car from GM.
This is the kind of thing that could've been solved by class action (I hate to say it, but class action is actually useful for some things).
But that was back before every single corporation on the planet started contractually affirming no one can file a class action against them and then the courts actually fucking agreed with them.
You mean back when almost all phone service in the U.S. was provided by the original AT&T and they charged just as much or more for the same service? No, there was never a time when this kind of thing could be solved by a class action law suit.
I know someone who is third generation rich (not out and out wealthy like the Kennedy's, but he never needed to work a day in his life). A large portion of his living expenses are paid from money that is not subject to income tax. His grandfather had established a very successful business that was run by his father and his uncle. The third generation was trained to take over, however, another company came along and made an offer for the business which was too good to pass up. The family was in agreement to the sale (there may have been some dissenters, but I have never heard about them). They set up a tax exempt trust that invests that money and distributes a certain amount of the gain to charity. The trust also owns a good portion of the family property, where some family members live rent free. I am quite confident that families with the wealth of the DuPonts, the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, etc have set up similar trusts.
Actually, there was one President who may not have been a natural born citizen, Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur may have been born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father (although he grew up in Vermont and claimed to have been born there).
There were several writers who referred to "children born of parents who owed no allegiance to foreign powers." If the logic from those quotes was the prevailing opinion, which is subject to debate, someone born of parents where one is a U.S. citizen and one is a citizen of another country would be eligible to be "native-born"* citizens of the U.S., but not "natural-born" citizens of the U.S.. As I said, there is just enough evidence in various writings from the time to make this argument, but enough contrary evidence to make the argument decidedly inconclusive.
*"native-born" is a term that is used in parallel with "natural-born", sometimes they are used in such a manner to suggest they mean the same thing, sometimes they are used in such a manner as to suggest that they mean distinctly different things. Yet none of the uses I have seen are conclusive one way or the other. That is, when I have read the passages I could see the author as understanding these to have different meanings, but I could also see that the author might have just been using the one term over the other in order to vary their word usage.
You know, I missed the fact that they never mentioned that it was a presidential campaign, which would have provided the little bit of context that would allow someone who is not in the U.S. to connect this to what is going on (and ignore it if they were not following U.S. Presidential politics closely enough to know who Paul Ryan was, since such a person would have no interest in the story).
If you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to know who Paul Ryan is, you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to make an informed decision on who to vote for for President. If you do not know who Paul Ryan is and are still going to vote for President this fall, you are just picking a candidate at random.
If you are not a resident of the U.S., since Paul Ryan is running for Vice President, he is completely irrelevant to you (the Vice President is an irrelevant post unless the President dies while in office). The only reason Romney's selection of Paul Ryan is relevant to the U.S. electorate is because it tells them something about how he will govern, but it does not contain enough information to be useful to anyone who is not a resident of the U.S. and paying attention to national politics over the last few years.
Except that the states do not actually have any such requirement...that is a candidate does not have to prove that they are eligible to run for the office of President to get on the ballot of most states (I am unaware of any states that require a candidate to prove that they are a "natural-born" citizen, except for ones that passed such laws since 2008). Please feel free to give me a relevant citation to prove me wrong, but I have been unable to find any reference to where a state requires a candidate to actually demonstrate that they meet the requirements to serve as President in order to get on the ballot to run for President.
And it's Ryan who proposed abolishing it altogether.
Exactly when did he do that? The only proposals by Paul Ryan on Medicare I have seen were one's that called for reforming it so that it does not go bankrupt. As to his proposals for Social Security, how is proposing to modify it so that those younger than 55 have a chance of actually collecting money from it while not making any changes to it for those over 55 saying "Screw You if You're Over 55!"? I suppose you like the Obama slogan better, "If you're under 40, plan on working till you die (if you can find a job)"
Actually, whether or not someone is a natural-born citizen is more complicated than that. George Romney is an edge case of one sort. His parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was born in a foreign country. A study of the way that "natural born" was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that such might have in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution disqualified him from serving as President (but the argument is inconclusive). Barack Obama represents another such edge case. Since only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, if he had been born outside of the U.S. he would not have qualified as "natural-born" as the term was used by the Framers. It is even ambiguous as to whether or not he qualifies as "natural-born" by the understanding of the term that the Framers would have held (it is ambiguous, there are sources which support such an argument, but they are not conclusive). The final example of an edge case for whether someone qualifies as a "natural-born" citizen is Marco Rubio. Rubio was born in the U.S., but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time. Again, looking at the writings about what "natural-born" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that he would not be considered "natural-born" by the definitions of the time, but once again, the writings are not conclusive and it is not clear whether he would have been viewed as a "natural-born" citizen or not.
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.
Why would it be? That would have been checked before he registered to be a candidate.
Really? by whom? As far as I am aware, there is no procedure in place to actually check whether or not a Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President.
Obama could have put the birther issue to rest once and for all if he had released his birth certificate back when it first arose in 2008. There are only a limited number of logical explanations for his failure to do so. The least conspiracy sounding is that he did not do so in order to cause the "birther" issue to take hold and make everyone who questioned any of Obama's history look like a crackpot.
Considering that Obama's literary agent was in 2008 still promoting Obama's autobiography by saying that he was born in Kenya, it was not unreasonable for people at the time to wonder if he was actually born in the U.S..
Considering that he was one of the leaders of the Democratic Party at the time (and for most of his career), it is really not an accurate comparison to compare him to Susan Collins. I would argue that by traditional definitions of liberal (that is being in favor of liberty) there is nothing very liberal about anybody currently in a significant role in the Democratic Party.
You miss his point. The truly wealthy don't pay income tax, so it doesn't matter how high the marginal tax rate is on income, it has no impact on the truly wealthy.
Most of the time all they probably need is a similar car (and maybe not even that, if the plate does not come back with anything flagged, what are the chances that the cop bothers to check what type of car it is supposed to be on), unless the driver is already behaving suspiciously. "There was a robbery at 12th and Main. Pull all of the license plates that were logged near there around that time."
Where did you get the idea that I was in any way saying it was the speaker's fault? At no point did I say it was the speaker's fault. You are the one who started this thread. You used the word consequence in the post I replied to.
What opinion did he change? He has believed that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man since at least 2004 when he said "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)..." Looking for more information I find him to be a believer in global warming at least as far back as 2000. I was unable to find any references where he expressed skepticism about man caused global warming, merely skepticism about the science of some of the alarmists, while agreeing with their general conclusion that there was man caused global warming.
So, are you saying that if the person had not said anything in the first place, they would have still lost the business?
Your comment makes your original post in this thread nonsense, because according to the logic you are losing there are no consequences of speech ever. There is just consequences of people's feelings. That makes saying "The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement" nonsense, since even the counter statement is a consequence of the feelings of the person making it not of the original speech (by the logic you just used).
To be perfectly honest, I do not know that the OP on this thread is correct about the subsidized irrigation. I do know that the water distribution setup in California (and much of the Southwest) is a complicated mess and subject to political shenanigans.
You initially said that the only acceptable consequence of "offensive" speech is more speech. I disagree, one acceptable consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people may not do business with the speaker. This is not the "responsibility" of the speaker, but it is a consequence that they will suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that depends, who is giving more to Obama's campaign, AT&T or Verizon. Whichever does so, he will pass a tax on those who do not buy their service in his next term, right after he passes the tax for not buying a car from GM.
They have in the U.S..
This is the kind of thing that could've been solved by class action (I hate to say it, but class action is actually useful for some things).
But that was back before every single corporation on the planet started contractually affirming no one can file a class action against them and then the courts actually fucking agreed with them.
You mean back when almost all phone service in the U.S. was provided by the original AT&T and they charged just as much or more for the same service? No, there was never a time when this kind of thing could be solved by a class action law suit.
I know someone who is third generation rich (not out and out wealthy like the Kennedy's, but he never needed to work a day in his life). A large portion of his living expenses are paid from money that is not subject to income tax. His grandfather had established a very successful business that was run by his father and his uncle. The third generation was trained to take over, however, another company came along and made an offer for the business which was too good to pass up. The family was in agreement to the sale (there may have been some dissenters, but I have never heard about them). They set up a tax exempt trust that invests that money and distributes a certain amount of the gain to charity. The trust also owns a good portion of the family property, where some family members live rent free. I am quite confident that families with the wealth of the DuPonts, the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, etc have set up similar trusts.
Actually, there was one President who may not have been a natural born citizen, Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur may have been born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father (although he grew up in Vermont and claimed to have been born there).
There were several writers who referred to "children born of parents who owed no allegiance to foreign powers." If the logic from those quotes was the prevailing opinion, which is subject to debate, someone born of parents where one is a U.S. citizen and one is a citizen of another country would be eligible to be "native-born"* citizens of the U.S., but not "natural-born" citizens of the U.S.. As I said, there is just enough evidence in various writings from the time to make this argument, but enough contrary evidence to make the argument decidedly inconclusive.
*"native-born" is a term that is used in parallel with "natural-born", sometimes they are used in such a manner to suggest they mean the same thing, sometimes they are used in such a manner as to suggest that they mean distinctly different things. Yet none of the uses I have seen are conclusive one way or the other. That is, when I have read the passages I could see the author as understanding these to have different meanings, but I could also see that the author might have just been using the one term over the other in order to vary their word usage.
You know, I missed the fact that they never mentioned that it was a presidential campaign, which would have provided the little bit of context that would allow someone who is not in the U.S. to connect this to what is going on (and ignore it if they were not following U.S. Presidential politics closely enough to know who Paul Ryan was, since such a person would have no interest in the story).
If you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to know who Paul Ryan is, you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to make an informed decision on who to vote for for President. If you do not know who Paul Ryan is and are still going to vote for President this fall, you are just picking a candidate at random.
If you are not a resident of the U.S., since Paul Ryan is running for Vice President, he is completely irrelevant to you (the Vice President is an irrelevant post unless the President dies while in office). The only reason Romney's selection of Paul Ryan is relevant to the U.S. electorate is because it tells them something about how he will govern, but it does not contain enough information to be useful to anyone who is not a resident of the U.S. and paying attention to national politics over the last few years.
Except that the states do not actually have any such requirement...that is a candidate does not have to prove that they are eligible to run for the office of President to get on the ballot of most states (I am unaware of any states that require a candidate to prove that they are a "natural-born" citizen, except for ones that passed such laws since 2008). Please feel free to give me a relevant citation to prove me wrong, but I have been unable to find any reference to where a state requires a candidate to actually demonstrate that they meet the requirements to serve as President in order to get on the ballot to run for President.
If you don't know who Paul Ryan is, why do you care?
Well, you know that Obama touted Joe Biden as the "next president of the United States" when he introduced him as his VP candidate in 2008?
And it's Ryan who proposed abolishing it altogether.
Exactly when did he do that? The only proposals by Paul Ryan on Medicare I have seen were one's that called for reforming it so that it does not go bankrupt. As to his proposals for Social Security, how is proposing to modify it so that those younger than 55 have a chance of actually collecting money from it while not making any changes to it for those over 55 saying "Screw You if You're Over 55!"? I suppose you like the Obama slogan better, "If you're under 40, plan on working till you die (if you can find a job)"
Actually, whether or not someone is a natural-born citizen is more complicated than that. George Romney is an edge case of one sort. His parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was born in a foreign country. A study of the way that "natural born" was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that such might have in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution disqualified him from serving as President (but the argument is inconclusive). Barack Obama represents another such edge case. Since only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, if he had been born outside of the U.S. he would not have qualified as "natural-born" as the term was used by the Framers. It is even ambiguous as to whether or not he qualifies as "natural-born" by the understanding of the term that the Framers would have held (it is ambiguous, there are sources which support such an argument, but they are not conclusive). The final example of an edge case for whether someone qualifies as a "natural-born" citizen is Marco Rubio. Rubio was born in the U.S., but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time. Again, looking at the writings about what "natural-born" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that he would not be considered "natural-born" by the definitions of the time, but once again, the writings are not conclusive and it is not clear whether he would have been viewed as a "natural-born" citizen or not.
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.
Why would it be? That would have been checked before he registered to be a candidate.
Really? by whom? As far as I am aware, there is no procedure in place to actually check whether or not a Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President.
Obama could have put the birther issue to rest once and for all if he had released his birth certificate back when it first arose in 2008. There are only a limited number of logical explanations for his failure to do so. The least conspiracy sounding is that he did not do so in order to cause the "birther" issue to take hold and make everyone who questioned any of Obama's history look like a crackpot.
Considering that Obama's literary agent was in 2008 still promoting Obama's autobiography by saying that he was born in Kenya, it was not unreasonable for people at the time to wonder if he was actually born in the U.S..
There are many sources of income that are not taxed, municipal bonds are one example.
Considering that he was one of the leaders of the Democratic Party at the time (and for most of his career), it is really not an accurate comparison to compare him to Susan Collins. I would argue that by traditional definitions of liberal (that is being in favor of liberty) there is nothing very liberal about anybody currently in a significant role in the Democratic Party.
You missed the TSA's strongest supporter from the Senate, Ernest "Confederate Flag" Hollings, Democrat from South Carolina.
You miss his point. The truly wealthy don't pay income tax, so it doesn't matter how high the marginal tax rate is on income, it has no impact on the truly wealthy.
Most of the time all they probably need is a similar car (and maybe not even that, if the plate does not come back with anything flagged, what are the chances that the cop bothers to check what type of car it is supposed to be on), unless the driver is already behaving suspiciously. "There was a robbery at 12th and Main. Pull all of the license plates that were logged near there around that time."
Where did you get the idea that I was in any way saying it was the speaker's fault? At no point did I say it was the speaker's fault. You are the one who started this thread. You used the word consequence in the post I replied to.
What opinion did he change? He has believed that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man since at least 2004 when he said "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)..." Looking for more information I find him to be a believer in global warming at least as far back as 2000. I was unable to find any references where he expressed skepticism about man caused global warming, merely skepticism about the science of some of the alarmists, while agreeing with their general conclusion that there was man caused global warming.
So, are you saying that if the person had not said anything in the first place, they would have still lost the business?
Your comment makes your original post in this thread nonsense, because according to the logic you are losing there are no consequences of speech ever. There is just consequences of people's feelings. That makes saying "The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement" nonsense, since even the counter statement is a consequence of the feelings of the person making it not of the original speech (by the logic you just used).
To be perfectly honest, I do not know that the OP on this thread is correct about the subsidized irrigation. I do know that the water distribution setup in California (and much of the Southwest) is a complicated mess and subject to political shenanigans.
You initially said that the only acceptable consequence of "offensive" speech is more speech. I disagree, one acceptable consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people may not do business with the speaker. This is not the "responsibility" of the speaker, but it is a consequence that they will suffer.