Considering that in every case where a cop stopped me for a broken tail-light I was given several days to get it fixed and show up at the police station to show that it was fixed, I suspect that if a cop gave you a ticket for a broken tail-light without first issuing such a warning/opportunity, the judge would likely believe you over the cop (assuming you showed up for the court date in the car in question and the tail-light on that car was not broken on that day).
The thing is that you have clear reasons to lie about whether or not you are guilty, unless you can present some evidence that the cop has a reason to lie about it, the default is correct. It does not have to be much, a third party who is willing to testify under oath that he has witnessed the officer harrassing you or swearing to get back at you is likely enough.
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default? Have you been in court in such a situation? Now, I think it is wise to act as if you believe that a cop's word will be taken over yours in a court of law, since it means that you will make the effort to obtain third party corroboration of your position in any disagreement with a police officer thus ensuring that it will not be his word against yours. However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
The less government there is, the more freedom everyone else has to screw you. Corporate America is a fine example of this.
No, corporate America is the reverse of this. Corporate America is an example of how the more government regulation there is, the more corporations can act without suffering consequences.
Almost all of these systems are set up on the opposite principal to the basis for our justice system. The U.S. justice system was established on the principal that it better to fail to identify the guy you are looking for than to identify someone else as that guy. These systems are set up on the assumption that it is better to get the wrong person occasionally than to miss the correct person. This is part of why security systems (not just the computerized ones) are tending to get out of hand. It is complicated by the fact that they do not want to profile for fear of being accused of bias.
Take for instance, the situation where a cop needs to give someone a ticket for a broken tail-light. The ticket coming from the cop needs to carry a presumption of veracity, otherwise it would be very impractical for cops to ticket anyone.
Are you aware that when a cop writes a ticket for a broken tail-light, that is equivalent to when a cop arrests someone for murder? In both cases, one must still choose to either plead "guilty" or "not guilty". In the case of the ticket, the penalty for pleading guilty is pre-determined and all one needs to do is mail in a check along with the ticket signed that you are pleading guilty. If you plead "not guilty", you need to provide some evidence that the police officer is lying about the broken tail-light, just as you would if the cop claimed to have seen you kill someone and you were pleading "not guilty".
Science is a great endeavor, but when hundreds of millions can't eat, something is wrong and it has nothing to do with global warming.
You are apparently unaware that a smaller percentage of the world population is underfed today than at any time in human history (well, ok, it may have been somewhat better 2-3 years ago, but that is not long enough back to support the point you are trying to make). The average daily caloric intake in deveolping countries is significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
Actually, yes it did. When the Royal Navy dominated the seas they pretty much eliminated piracy except in a few corners of the world (and even there only on a small scale).
What spending did Obama offer to cut? Please be specific. Oh, yeah, which taxes did Obama want to increase and how much revenue would be generated by those increases? Once more, please be specific. On the tax increases, the only specific I have seen was enough to cover 8 hours of current deficit spending each year. Oh yeah, it was a tax deduction that Obama asked for back in the beginning of 2009 as part of his "stimulus" package.
Considering that those were too of the most regulated industries when the latest problems in them happened, what makes you think that increasing the regulations on them is going to help? I do know that one of the causes of the latest financial mess was the result of banks that were "too big to fail". As a result of that mess, an people like you, they passed the Dodd-Frank bill (named after two legislators who worked to keep anyone from addressing the problem before it blew up and then wrote the law that is supposed to keep it from happening again). The Dodd-Frank bill has already resulted in numerous small banks being purchased by larger banks, because the new regulations are too expensive for many small banks to remain profitable. How does that address the problem of banks that are "too big to fail"?
Where do you think the "corporate plutocrats" got their power in the first place? They got it by harnessing the demands of the government to "do something". Every few years, there is a movement demanding that the government reign in the "corporate plutocrats". The politicians pass some laws that purport to do so. Shortly thereafter, it becomes apparent that the "corporate plutocrats" have even more power. Then the cycle repeats.
This does not mean that no government regulation is a net benefit. It is just that we have long passed the point where more government regulation is the answer an entered into the zone where less government regulation is the answer.
I could be mistaken, but I think these newspapers were trying to force Google to pay them for listing them in Google News. They figured they would get this court order for an outrageous amount of money and then they could go to Google and offer to license the content for some more "reasonable" amount. Google's response was, "OK, if that's how you want it, we won't list you. Have a good life." The newspapers are upset because they got what they asked for, not what they wanted.
The problem with your theory is that regulations stifles competition rather than preserve it. Regulation creates another barrier to entry, thus providing one more protection for the incumbent in any particular business.
The problem with this approach can best be explained by math. If you don't know that 2+2=4, you will not understand that 2x2=4. If you don't know that Louis Pastuer proved that life does not come into existence by spontaneous generation, you might believe that all life came into existence by spontaneous generation.
My experience has been that most new government regulation is designed to "fix" problems that were created by government regulation in the first place. When the market has been abused (almost always the result of government regulations), it results in government regulations that make the market even more susceptible to abuse.
It has gotten to bad that the current administration has the guts to call for new laws and regulations to "fix" a problem that was created by them actively not enforcing current laws and regulations (look into "Operation Fast & Furious").
Unlike the government the 'invisible hand' is not watching our back. Of course, the reason the government is watching our back is because it is looking for an opportune time to stick a knife in it.
The Founding Fathers would be horrified by that logic. They would agree that regulations on the airlines fall under the power of Congress, but they would object to the government extending those regulations to the passengers. There are a lot of things that have been justified under the Commerce Clause that those who wrote the clause said were outside of the authority granted to the federal government.
I would argue that the Nazis were also atheists based on their internal writings, but there are many who would disagree, so I generally leave them as "nuetrals" in this debate. However, Nazism was most definitely not a Christian ideology.
Revolutionary Marxism is an atheistic belief system. So, at best, all you have done is establish that the reason they killed was because they had a belief system that was a subset of atheism. If you are going to lump all religious killings together, than I am going to lump all atheist killings together. They killed as they did because of their belief system. An integral part of their belief system was atheism.
You are right. It is not even close. Mao and Stalin killed in the millions. Religious wars killed in the thousands. Even when you count all those years it does not add up to as many people.
I just re-read your post. You want to blame religion for atheists killing people for their religious beliefs?
Even with itemized paper bills, many people don't look at what they are being billed for. Of course, if you don't look at the itemized portion of the bill, don't complain when mystery charges turn up. Even without anyone doing anything evil, incorrect charges will occasionally turn up because someone made a data entry error.
I understand why you do what you do. I know approximately what each of my bills should be and if it is close to that I just glance over the itemized portion to make sure there isn't some new category of charge. I had one recurring charge on a cell phone bill get by for two or three months because it was less than two dollars because of that. Then my wife sent an unusual amount of text messages one month and my bill was high, so I looked at the details. The bill was high for legitmate reasons, but I caught the invalid charge (now I look at my cell phone bill a little closer each month).
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that in every case where a cop stopped me for a broken tail-light I was given several days to get it fixed and show up at the police station to show that it was fixed, I suspect that if a cop gave you a ticket for a broken tail-light without first issuing such a warning/opportunity, the judge would likely believe you over the cop (assuming you showed up for the court date in the car in question and the tail-light on that car was not broken on that day).
The thing is that you have clear reasons to lie about whether or not you are guilty, unless you can present some evidence that the cop has a reason to lie about it, the default is correct. It does not have to be much, a third party who is willing to testify under oath that he has witnessed the officer harrassing you or swearing to get back at you is likely enough.
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default? Have you been in court in such a situation? Now, I think it is wise to act as if you believe that a cop's word will be taken over yours in a court of law, since it means that you will make the effort to obtain third party corroboration of your position in any disagreement with a police officer thus ensuring that it will not be his word against yours. However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
The less government there is, the more freedom everyone else has to screw you. Corporate America is a fine example of this.
No, corporate America is the reverse of this. Corporate America is an example of how the more government regulation there is, the more corporations can act without suffering consequences.
Almost all of these systems are set up on the opposite principal to the basis for our justice system. The U.S. justice system was established on the principal that it better to fail to identify the guy you are looking for than to identify someone else as that guy. These systems are set up on the assumption that it is better to get the wrong person occasionally than to miss the correct person. This is part of why security systems (not just the computerized ones) are tending to get out of hand. It is complicated by the fact that they do not want to profile for fear of being accused of bias.
Take for instance, the situation where a cop needs to give someone a ticket for a broken tail-light. The ticket coming from the cop needs to carry a presumption of veracity, otherwise it would be very impractical for cops to ticket anyone.
Are you aware that when a cop writes a ticket for a broken tail-light, that is equivalent to when a cop arrests someone for murder? In both cases, one must still choose to either plead "guilty" or "not guilty". In the case of the ticket, the penalty for pleading guilty is pre-determined and all one needs to do is mail in a check along with the ticket signed that you are pleading guilty. If you plead "not guilty", you need to provide some evidence that the police officer is lying about the broken tail-light, just as you would if the cop claimed to have seen you kill someone and you were pleading "not guilty".
Science is a great endeavor, but when hundreds of millions can't eat, something is wrong and it has nothing to do with global warming.
You are apparently unaware that a smaller percentage of the world population is underfed today than at any time in human history (well, ok, it may have been somewhat better 2-3 years ago, but that is not long enough back to support the point you are trying to make). The average daily caloric intake in deveolping countries is significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
Actually, yes it did. When the Royal Navy dominated the seas they pretty much eliminated piracy except in a few corners of the world (and even there only on a small scale).
What spending did Obama offer to cut? Please be specific. Oh, yeah, which taxes did Obama want to increase and how much revenue would be generated by those increases? Once more, please be specific. On the tax increases, the only specific I have seen was enough to cover 8 hours of current deficit spending each year. Oh yeah, it was a tax deduction that Obama asked for back in the beginning of 2009 as part of his "stimulus" package.
Considering that those were too of the most regulated industries when the latest problems in them happened, what makes you think that increasing the regulations on them is going to help? I do know that one of the causes of the latest financial mess was the result of banks that were "too big to fail". As a result of that mess, an people like you, they passed the Dodd-Frank bill (named after two legislators who worked to keep anyone from addressing the problem before it blew up and then wrote the law that is supposed to keep it from happening again). The Dodd-Frank bill has already resulted in numerous small banks being purchased by larger banks, because the new regulations are too expensive for many small banks to remain profitable. How does that address the problem of banks that are "too big to fail"?
Where do you think the "corporate plutocrats" got their power in the first place? They got it by harnessing the demands of the government to "do something". Every few years, there is a movement demanding that the government reign in the "corporate plutocrats". The politicians pass some laws that purport to do so. Shortly thereafter, it becomes apparent that the "corporate plutocrats" have even more power. Then the cycle repeats.
This does not mean that no government regulation is a net benefit. It is just that we have long passed the point where more government regulation is the answer an entered into the zone where less government regulation is the answer.
I could be mistaken, but I think these newspapers were trying to force Google to pay them for listing them in Google News. They figured they would get this court order for an outrageous amount of money and then they could go to Google and offer to license the content for some more "reasonable" amount. Google's response was, "OK, if that's how you want it, we won't list you. Have a good life." The newspapers are upset because they got what they asked for, not what they wanted.
Some regulations may be necessary, but all regulations make it harder to compete in that particular industry.
You go right on believing that and politicians will go right on taking away your rights to "fix" problems that they created.
The problem with your theory is that regulations stifles competition rather than preserve it. Regulation creates another barrier to entry, thus providing one more protection for the incumbent in any particular business.
The problem with this approach can best be explained by math. If you don't know that 2+2=4, you will not understand that 2x2=4. If you don't know that Louis Pastuer proved that life does not come into existence by spontaneous generation, you might believe that all life came into existence by spontaneous generation.
My experience has been that most new government regulation is designed to "fix" problems that were created by government regulation in the first place. When the market has been abused (almost always the result of government regulations), it results in government regulations that make the market even more susceptible to abuse.
It has gotten to bad that the current administration has the guts to call for new laws and regulations to "fix" a problem that was created by them actively not enforcing current laws and regulations (look into "Operation Fast & Furious").
I'm not sure it is quite that high, but certainly well over 50%. And I certainly would not want to debate against your figure.
Unlike the government the 'invisible hand' is not watching our back. Of course, the reason the government is watching our back is because it is looking for an opportune time to stick a knife in it.
The Founding Fathers would be horrified by that logic. They would agree that regulations on the airlines fall under the power of Congress, but they would object to the government extending those regulations to the passengers. There are a lot of things that have been justified under the Commerce Clause that those who wrote the clause said were outside of the authority granted to the federal government.
I previously replied to you. However, this morning I came across an article about how the Democrats on the committee investigating Operation Fast & Furious are introducing new gun control legislation "to keep powerful firearms out of the hands of...the Mexican drug cartels." Check these two links: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/07/14/democrats_to_introduce_gun_control_legislation_tomorrow http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/07/13/operation_fast_and_furious_designed_to_promote_gun_control
I have seen a data entry error result in underbilling, as in a service I ordered was billed to someone else. However, overbilling is much more common.
I would argue that the Nazis were also atheists based on their internal writings, but there are many who would disagree, so I generally leave them as "nuetrals" in this debate. However, Nazism was most definitely not a Christian ideology.
Revolutionary Marxism is an atheistic belief system. So, at best, all you have done is establish that the reason they killed was because they had a belief system that was a subset of atheism. If you are going to lump all religious killings together, than I am going to lump all atheist killings together. They killed as they did because of their belief system. An integral part of their belief system was atheism.
Check your facts. Look into how many teachers in New York are paid to not teach because they have been accused of child sexual abuse and how long.
You are right. It is not even close. Mao and Stalin killed in the millions. Religious wars killed in the thousands. Even when you count all those years it does not add up to as many people.
I just re-read your post. You want to blame religion for atheists killing people for their religious beliefs?
Even with itemized paper bills, many people don't look at what they are being billed for. Of course, if you don't look at the itemized portion of the bill, don't complain when mystery charges turn up. Even without anyone doing anything evil, incorrect charges will occasionally turn up because someone made a data entry error.
I understand why you do what you do. I know approximately what each of my bills should be and if it is close to that I just glance over the itemized portion to make sure there isn't some new category of charge. I had one recurring charge on a cell phone bill get by for two or three months because it was less than two dollars because of that. Then my wife sent an unusual amount of text messages one month and my bill was high, so I looked at the details. The bill was high for legitmate reasons, but I caught the invalid charge (now I look at my cell phone bill a little closer each month).