If that is the case, then THAT should be discussed more clearly. What, in particular, are you talking about? Assume in your explanation that most people reading are not, in fact, from India and don't know the first thing about Indian laws or politics.
And ice cream tastes delicious. Tell me something less obvious and more related to this story. Unless I am missing the part where India does not require warrants, this just sounds like what we did here in America, requiring that telecommunications providers give law enforcement the means to lawfully tap communications when a court grants them a warrant.
I make over that and don't lose half my income. And I really don't see your imagined slippery slope as a problem. There is a clear distinction between the owning class who make the majority of their income from gambling (or 'investment' as they like to call it) and the vast majority of us who actually work for a living.
Most countries in the world pay a significantly larger proportion of GDP in taxes than we do. In fact, taxes in America account for less than 20% of GDP. Yet many citizens in many countries that pay more in taxes actually consider the taxes they pay to be a great bargain in exchange for the services they get.
So the real question is, what are we doing wrong here in America? Why are we not getting a good bargain? I would say, that is thanks to the corrupting influence of the rich man's money on politics.
The nation continues to grow, even during this recession. Why shouldn't the government grow with it? If you could show that the government was growing faster than GDP was growing, I might be more concerned.
I don't think it is the size of government that is the problem. I think it is the waste, corruption, and all the pork barrel projects helping those who least need the help.
You misunderstand socialism. The problem isn't stupid people, it's greedy, evil, selfish people. You see, we have government to protect us from those people. Socialism isn't about helping people who are too stupid to help themselves, it is about protecting those too weak to protect themselves.
History has shown us that we can not educate the vast majority of people to become genius saints, that is simply not human nature. In fact, the idea that we need to "educate" humanity to be genius-saints is pure Marxism. It didn't turn out so well.
Giving to the poor benefits society. In a more egalitarian society where everyone has a place, people work harder. They cheat and steal less. Social stability improves. Unfortunately, some people want these benefits without paying for them. They want you to pay to help the poor, so they don't have to. I don't approve of crooks like that, and fully support making them pay their fair share.
I don't think there is a right to keep crimes secret in any society in the world. In fact, I believe it is in society's best interest to allow courts to compel testimony and subpoena evidence. I also do not see how you can claim that 'lawful access' is the same as 'unlawful access.' Or are you claiming that all governments everywhere will always lie to their citizens? For your own sake I will caution you that when you claim that governments are completely corrupt and evil and always lie, you are veering off into territory where few rational individuals will follow. Most of us recognize that democratic governments, while flawed, are vastly preferably to the tyranny of the strong that would exist without them.
I'm not sure what you're so angry about. Do you disagree with a government's right to subpoena evidence? What are the bribes you are talking about? This doesn't sound that much different than our American law enforcement demanding the ability to tap phones, given a proper warrant. If it is different, you haven't explained how, and if it is not different, you haven't explained how society would benefit by letting people keep secrets from the courts.
The problem is that, of all the economic growth over the last thirty years or so, almost all of it has gone to the top one percent. The owning class are actively redistributing wealth upwards. You may be alright being a slave, but I'm not. The working class creates wealth, by actually working, yet the wealth goes to the owning class, who thanks to socialism for the rich, don't even have the excuse that they are 'risking' their wealth by investing it in job creation. They get bailouts, even if the companies they own employ only minimum wage Indians and Asians and no actual Americans whatsoever.
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." The Wealth of Nations,Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775
If Government is stripped of all other functions save the defense of property, it is a tyranny of the rich. I believe that is why the rich nearly invariably favor small government. The more desperate the have-nots are, the more they will put up with and the less they will demand. Taking away social safety nets favors the rich employer who desires a pool of desperate, starving, cheap workers.
But the truly rich make up less than one percent of our population. Why do the non rich desire smaller government? Is it out of some philosophical principle? Well, if humans were commonly genius-saints, perhaps. But we aren't. Most of us start from our assumptions and reason backwards to find support. And most of the upper middle class assume they will be rich one day, despite the lack of any evidence that this is likely. The gap between an upper middle class person making $100,000 to $250,000 per year and an actual owning class person is tremendous. We do not have as much upward mobility in our society as we would like to believe, but everyone believes we do. Why? Simple: anyone who says they don't think they can make it is obviously a failure. Who wants to admit to being a failure? The myth says hard work will make you rich, what, are you lazy?
This is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor, even though the middle class has far more in common with the poor than the rich.
The summary is clear as mud, but it sounds like the prosecutors made reference to the DSM. Why refer to the wikipedia article on it? The DSM itself is the authority on psychological disorders. If wiki quoted the DSM correctly, then it is likely correct on the matter. So why did the prosecutor cite wiki, and not the actual authoritative source that wiki cites? Stupid.
You can watch Beck on the TV, if you try to take your Rascal down to the Lincoln Memorial you're just going to get lost. And just for the record, you aren't married to Sarah Palin, okay? Sheesh. You'd think those nurses could figure out how to get a cranky old white guy to take his meds.
Or you could google for 'fox news calls republicans democrats,' there are a ton of cases. In fact, it seems your phrase actually refers to one single solitary instance, blown out of proportion in order to provide a false sense of balance to the phenomenon of Right Wingers doing this for the last decade or so. In the case of Faux News, it has happened literally dozens of times. But only when the Repug in question has done something heinous.
Now back under the troll bridge with you, fascist.
And he didn't show examples of Republicans affiliation being mentioned when they did something wrong. It's psychological projection: Fox News actually does this for Republicans, frequently going so far as to label little known Republicans who get into trouble as Democrats.
In many localities, cable rate increases are limited by contract. Has your local government failed to secure proper oversight in exchange for monopoly privilege? I guess you have no one to blame but them, then.
In the first one, the Democrat was named but her 14 cosigners were not. Many were Republicans.
In the second case, there was no malfeasance by Alan Grayson.
In the third case, again, no malfeasance.
In the last case, we have a legitimately bad law proposed by a Democrat.
Congratulations! Your job is now half done. All you have to do is show a similar story where a Republican's affiliation is mentioned. Otherwise, all we have is evidence that Slashdot does not usually name anyone's party affiliation.
I don't think it actually works that way. In reality, businesses have many different expenses, payroll, taxes, inventory, and so on. The prices of the products and services they sell will certainly not be any less than the costs they incur. But how meaningful is it to say, "No business ever paid a single dime in taxes that wasn't paid for by a consumer?" You could say that about absolutely any expense a business had, "No business ever paid a single dime in payroll that wasn't paid for by a consumer," or "No business ever paid a single dime in inventory that wasn't paid for by a consumer," are all equally accurate statements.
In fact, by your logic we could easily say that only businesses pay taxes, as individuals pass on the expense of taxes to their employer. No individual ever paid a single dime in taxes that wasn't paid for by a business, because said individual would be broke if they didn't have an income form some sort of business. And that is why your statements are meaningless.
The real question comes when we raise taxes. Is the entirety of that increase always passed on to the consumer, or does some of it occasionally come out of corporate profits? I would hazard a guess that if corporations could just raise prices willy-nilly, they would. Competition keeps them from raising prices to arbitrarily high levels. If a corporation is hit with new taxes while making high profits, they may have to accept a reduction in profits in order to stay competitive.
Slashdot Mirror
If that is the case, then THAT should be discussed more clearly. What, in particular, are you talking about? Assume in your explanation that most people reading are not, in fact, from India and don't know the first thing about Indian laws or politics.
And ice cream tastes delicious. Tell me something less obvious and more related to this story. Unless I am missing the part where India does not require warrants, this just sounds like what we did here in America, requiring that telecommunications providers give law enforcement the means to lawfully tap communications when a court grants them a warrant.
Are you saying the Indian government does not need a warrant to tap private communications?
I make over that and don't lose half my income. And I really don't see your imagined slippery slope as a problem. There is a clear distinction between the owning class who make the majority of their income from gambling (or 'investment' as they like to call it) and the vast majority of us who actually work for a living.
Most countries in the world pay a significantly larger proportion of GDP in taxes than we do. In fact, taxes in America account for less than 20% of GDP. Yet many citizens in many countries that pay more in taxes actually consider the taxes they pay to be a great bargain in exchange for the services they get.
So the real question is, what are we doing wrong here in America? Why are we not getting a good bargain? I would say, that is thanks to the corrupting influence of the rich man's money on politics.
Why do you think governments will always lie to their citizens if they can? And more importantly, if you are right, how do we stop them from lying?
The nation continues to grow, even during this recession. Why shouldn't the government grow with it? If you could show that the government was growing faster than GDP was growing, I might be more concerned.
I don't think it is the size of government that is the problem. I think it is the waste, corruption, and all the pork barrel projects helping those who least need the help.
You misunderstand socialism. The problem isn't stupid people, it's greedy, evil, selfish people. You see, we have government to protect us from those people. Socialism isn't about helping people who are too stupid to help themselves, it is about protecting those too weak to protect themselves.
History has shown us that we can not educate the vast majority of people to become genius saints, that is simply not human nature. In fact, the idea that we need to "educate" humanity to be genius-saints is pure Marxism. It didn't turn out so well.
Giving to the poor benefits society. In a more egalitarian society where everyone has a place, people work harder. They cheat and steal less. Social stability improves. Unfortunately, some people want these benefits without paying for them. They want you to pay to help the poor, so they don't have to. I don't approve of crooks like that, and fully support making them pay their fair share.
I don't think there is a right to keep crimes secret in any society in the world. In fact, I believe it is in society's best interest to allow courts to compel testimony and subpoena evidence. I also do not see how you can claim that 'lawful access' is the same as 'unlawful access.' Or are you claiming that all governments everywhere will always lie to their citizens? For your own sake I will caution you that when you claim that governments are completely corrupt and evil and always lie, you are veering off into territory where few rational individuals will follow. Most of us recognize that democratic governments, while flawed, are vastly preferably to the tyranny of the strong that would exist without them.
I'm not sure what you're so angry about. Do you disagree with a government's right to subpoena evidence? What are the bribes you are talking about? This doesn't sound that much different than our American law enforcement demanding the ability to tap phones, given a proper warrant. If it is different, you haven't explained how, and if it is not different, you haven't explained how society would benefit by letting people keep secrets from the courts.
The problem is that, of all the economic growth over the last thirty years or so, almost all of it has gone to the top one percent. The owning class are actively redistributing wealth upwards. You may be alright being a slave, but I'm not. The working class creates wealth, by actually working, yet the wealth goes to the owning class, who thanks to socialism for the rich, don't even have the excuse that they are 'risking' their wealth by investing it in job creation. They get bailouts, even if the companies they own employ only minimum wage Indians and Asians and no actual Americans whatsoever.
I thought the D stood for 'delicious,' which he is, being made out of spaghetti and meatballs.
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
The Wealth of Nations,Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775
If Government is stripped of all other functions save the defense of property, it is a tyranny of the rich. I believe that is why the rich nearly invariably favor small government. The more desperate the have-nots are, the more they will put up with and the less they will demand. Taking away social safety nets favors the rich employer who desires a pool of desperate, starving, cheap workers.
But the truly rich make up less than one percent of our population. Why do the non rich desire smaller government? Is it out of some philosophical principle? Well, if humans were commonly genius-saints, perhaps. But we aren't. Most of us start from our assumptions and reason backwards to find support. And most of the upper middle class assume they will be rich one day, despite the lack of any evidence that this is likely. The gap between an upper middle class person making $100,000 to $250,000 per year and an actual owning class person is tremendous. We do not have as much upward mobility in our society as we would like to believe, but everyone believes we do. Why? Simple: anyone who says they don't think they can make it is obviously a failure. Who wants to admit to being a failure? The myth says hard work will make you rich, what, are you lazy?
This is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor, even though the middle class has far more in common with the poor than the rich.
The summary is clear as mud, but it sounds like the prosecutors made reference to the DSM. Why refer to the wikipedia article on it? The DSM itself is the authority on psychological disorders. If wiki quoted the DSM correctly, then it is likely correct on the matter. So why did the prosecutor cite wiki, and not the actual authoritative source that wiki cites? Stupid.
You can watch Beck on the TV, if you try to take your Rascal down to the Lincoln Memorial you're just going to get lost. And just for the record, you aren't married to Sarah Palin, okay? Sheesh. You'd think those nurses could figure out how to get a cranky old white guy to take his meds.
http://wizbangblue.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-lies-and-calls-republican-gov-sanford-a-democrat.php
Or you could google for 'fox news calls republicans democrats,' there are a ton of cases. In fact, it seems your phrase actually refers to one single solitary instance, blown out of proportion in order to provide a false sense of balance to the phenomenon of Right Wingers doing this for the last decade or so. In the case of Faux News, it has happened literally dozens of times. But only when the Repug in question has done something heinous.
Now back under the troll bridge with you, fascist.
By that same logic, a seller can't just go to their customers and increase prices, the customers will laugh them out the door and shop someplace else.
And he didn't show examples of Republicans affiliation being mentioned when they did something wrong. It's psychological projection: Fox News actually does this for Republicans, frequently going so far as to label little known Republicans who get into trouble as Democrats.
"Transparent bullshit," sorry that got cut off.
You haven't shown evidence of the second part of your hypothesis: that Republicans' affiliations are mentioned.
Are you really this bad at constructing logical arguments, or do you assume your readers are idiots who won't see through your transparent
In many localities, cable rate increases are limited by contract. Has your local government failed to secure proper oversight in exchange for monopoly privilege? I guess you have no one to blame but them, then.
Argh, the socialists have thought of everything! There's no winning this one.
In the first one, the Democrat was named but her 14 cosigners were not. Many were Republicans.
In the second case, there was no malfeasance by Alan Grayson.
In the third case, again, no malfeasance.
In the last case, we have a legitimately bad law proposed by a Democrat.
Congratulations! Your job is now half done. All you have to do is show a similar story where a Republican's affiliation is mentioned. Otherwise, all we have is evidence that Slashdot does not usually name anyone's party affiliation.
Sorry, you said "stories" plural so you have to come up with at least one more before it's my turn.
I don't think it actually works that way. In reality, businesses have many different expenses, payroll, taxes, inventory, and so on. The prices of the products and services they sell will certainly not be any less than the costs they incur. But how meaningful is it to say, "No business ever paid a single dime in taxes that wasn't paid for by a consumer?" You could say that about absolutely any expense a business had, "No business ever paid a single dime in payroll that wasn't paid for by a consumer," or "No business ever paid a single dime in inventory that wasn't paid for by a consumer," are all equally accurate statements.
In fact, by your logic we could easily say that only businesses pay taxes, as individuals pass on the expense of taxes to their employer. No individual ever paid a single dime in taxes that wasn't paid for by a business, because said individual would be broke if they didn't have an income form some sort of business. And that is why your statements are meaningless.
The real question comes when we raise taxes. Is the entirety of that increase always passed on to the consumer, or does some of it occasionally come out of corporate profits? I would hazard a guess that if corporations could just raise prices willy-nilly, they would. Competition keeps them from raising prices to arbitrarily high levels. If a corporation is hit with new taxes while making high profits, they may have to accept a reduction in profits in order to stay competitive.
If you really believe Slashdot is naming party affiliation of Republicans and not Democrats, you should be able to provide a few examples.