:Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted.
I hope you are just trolling and not serious. His point was that he it didn't matter. If he is a suspect, then it is a logical thing to do, and should NOT be compared to the Twitter case.
Was that his point? What twitter case do you refer to? What is a logical thing to do? What didn't matter?
I don't think you know what SuperKendall's point was, and I'm damn sure no one knows what yours is.
Your fiction is a fiction. Nobody was claiming he was a Tea Partier or conservative, they were claiming that crazy people are like powder kegs, and that pundits on the right have been throwing lit matches everywhere hoping to set one off. They have succeeded in setting off the crazies again and again in the last few years, and they will continue to try to set off the crazies against their opponents on the left. The way I see it, pundits on the right have gotten away with murder, more than once. They know full well that their words will have an impact on crazy people. Look at that loon arrested for trying to blow up the Tides Foundation. Never heard of it? Then you must not watch Glenn Beck, he is the only person on national television ever to mention the Tides Foundation, and he portrayed them as anti-American. But of course, the crazy who tried to blow them up is not his fault, even though said crazy would never even have known about the Tides Foundation were it not for the likes of Glenn Beck.
Nothing on the record shows he was pro communism, he happened to have read Marx, but he also read Ayn Rand. Hmmm, pro-pot, anti-religion, read Marx and Rand? To me, that sounds more like a libertarian than a liberal or a conservative.
I don't think he is a teabagger or a conservative. He is a nutjob who was almost certainly going to snap someday. The question is, was his choice of target influenced by teabaggers, conservatives, and right wing pundits' inflammatory, violent anti-government rhetoric?
Even if he is mentally ill, he is a criminal suspect. Insanity is a possible defense against criminal charges, it does not negate criminal charges. At his trial, he might be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Until then, he is a criminal suspect.
Lots of folks did do something to help. It is pretty clear that nearly everyone who knew him saw his descent into madness and tried to help in some way. But it is very hard to help the mentally ill against their will.
No, it is not. You do not understand what "fascist" and "dictatorial" actually mean. Plus, exhortation to violence is not protected speech. Finally, even if it were protected speech, the government is allowed to access it with a warrant while building a criminal case. You, sir, are an idiot.
Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side),
Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted. He is technically a criminal suspect, because he has not been tried yet, but dozens of witnesses directly observed him committing murder. How can you question the validity of treating him as a criminal suspect?
No, the best lawyer says, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury, this is Chewbaca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"
I'm saying that the actual wealth of the middle class has decreased since the 1950s, even when you count in such factors as modern appliances and new forms of entertainment. Devices today do not have more intrinsic value. A television today might be larger and clearer than a television of the 1950s, but it does the same job, entertaining people. It does not provide relatively more value than a television of the 1950s. Today's cars are better technically, but they serve the same purpose: transportation. They do not do a materially better job of transporting people than they did in the 1950s.
Just to be clear, because it reads as if you are quite confused on the topic, I am not, and have not ever called for banning smart meters. I think they are a great idea! You are still arguing from the supposition that I am somehow a Luddite, and against technological progress, even though I have clearly stated more than once that I am not.
Perhaps the point of confusion for you is the topic of the article. You seem to think we are discussing that topic. Reread this thread. We are not discussing smart meters here, at all, in any way. This thread veered off that topic long ago. Got it? Nothing I've written in this thread should be taken as related to smart meters. It is a general discussion of income and wealth inequality. This thread started because someone claimed that unions wanted to stop smart meters in order to protect their union jobs. Are we on the same page now?
It appears you are entirely correct. I had always heard that high recidivism was the reason we treated sex offenders differently. Turns out that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than any other class of crime except murder. So why do we treat them differently?
So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever? How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease? It's more expensive, as well.
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
The data doesn't lie, and your assertions are simply grounded in wishful thinking, not facts. If you want to show that the middle class is richer than it used to be, provide me with some hard data that disproves the data I already provided.
Back in the fifties, the average family made more money working less hours. A factory worker would make enough to support a family on one income. We had cars, modern appliances, refrigeration, TV, radio, movies... okay, no home computers or Internet, but if those made the average person richer, it would show in the data. As I mentioned, the data includes a 'fudge factor' for things like the Internet and home computers. Without that fudge factor that basically says, "We have the Internet now, so everyone is $1,423 (or whatever) per year richer," the numbers would look even worse. Home computers and the Internet do not make people generically wealthier by their presence, they are just entertainment media for most people, and we already had a ton of entertainment media.
The middle class is worse off than it was fifty years ago. I've provided census data to back up my point. You have made unsupported assertions to the contrary. You do realize how silly it looks when I bring facts and figures to the table and all you can do is say "Nuh uh! Is not! We're richer because I say so!"
Please, either provide something to back up your claims, or admit you are wrong.
A capitalist is someone who makes most of their income from interest. Capitalism is the lending of money for profit, it is not the free market. You can have a free market without capitalism. Just using capital does not make you a capitalist, hell, communists still use capital. You can also be both a capitalist and an entrepreneur, but they are different things, and you can have entrepreneurship without capitalism and vice versa. Just living and working in a capitalist system does not make you a capitalist any more than working and living in a communist system makes you a communist. Some people disagree with the economic system they live under.
We are a great nation, we can conquer any problem we set our minds to.
Yeah i remember how you captured Osama.
We never wanted to. He's worth so much more to the powers that be as a boogyman. He can't continue to scare and distract us if he's locked up or killed.
Slashdot Mirror
How could they sue in civil court if slander and libel were protected speech?
I hope you are just trolling and not serious. His point was that he it didn't matter. If he is a suspect, then it is a logical thing to do, and should NOT be compared to the Twitter case.
Was that his point? What twitter case do you refer to? What is a logical thing to do? What didn't matter?
I don't think you know what SuperKendall's point was, and I'm damn sure no one knows what yours is.
Your fiction is a fiction. Nobody was claiming he was a Tea Partier or conservative, they were claiming that crazy people are like powder kegs, and that pundits on the right have been throwing lit matches everywhere hoping to set one off. They have succeeded in setting off the crazies again and again in the last few years, and they will continue to try to set off the crazies against their opponents on the left. The way I see it, pundits on the right have gotten away with murder, more than once. They know full well that their words will have an impact on crazy people. Look at that loon arrested for trying to blow up the Tides Foundation. Never heard of it? Then you must not watch Glenn Beck, he is the only person on national television ever to mention the Tides Foundation, and he portrayed them as anti-American. But of course, the crazy who tried to blow them up is not his fault, even though said crazy would never even have known about the Tides Foundation were it not for the likes of Glenn Beck.
I know who YOU were referring too, and I agree with you. I (and the person I was responding to) were referring to Jared himself.
If free speech is an absolute, and all speech is protected, then libel and slander would not be crimes. You okay with that?
Nothing on the record shows he was pro communism, he happened to have read Marx, but he also read Ayn Rand. Hmmm, pro-pot, anti-religion, read Marx and Rand? To me, that sounds more like a libertarian than a liberal or a conservative.
I don't think he is a teabagger or a conservative. He is a nutjob who was almost certainly going to snap someday. The question is, was his choice of target influenced by teabaggers, conservatives, and right wing pundits' inflammatory, violent anti-government rhetoric?
U mad?
Correct, it must be an immediate exhortation to violence. Sorry if that was unclear.
Even if he is mentally ill, he is a criminal suspect. Insanity is a possible defense against criminal charges, it does not negate criminal charges. At his trial, he might be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Until then, he is a criminal suspect.
Lots of folks did do something to help. It is pretty clear that nearly everyone who knew him saw his descent into madness and tried to help in some way. But it is very hard to help the mentally ill against their will.
What twelve year old says shit creepier than "I know how to keep you alive for a week while I eat your flesh?"
No, it is not. You do not understand what "fascist" and "dictatorial" actually mean. Plus, exhortation to violence is not protected speech. Finally, even if it were protected speech, the government is allowed to access it with a warrant while building a criminal case. You, sir, are an idiot.
Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side),
Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted. He is technically a criminal suspect, because he has not been tried yet, but dozens of witnesses directly observed him committing murder. How can you question the validity of treating him as a criminal suspect?
No, the best lawyer says, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury, this is Chewbaca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"
I'm saying that the actual wealth of the middle class has decreased since the 1950s, even when you count in such factors as modern appliances and new forms of entertainment. Devices today do not have more intrinsic value. A television today might be larger and clearer than a television of the 1950s, but it does the same job, entertaining people. It does not provide relatively more value than a television of the 1950s. Today's cars are better technically, but they serve the same purpose: transportation. They do not do a materially better job of transporting people than they did in the 1950s.
Just to be clear, because it reads as if you are quite confused on the topic, I am not, and have not ever called for banning smart meters. I think they are a great idea! You are still arguing from the supposition that I am somehow a Luddite, and against technological progress, even though I have clearly stated more than once that I am not.
Perhaps the point of confusion for you is the topic of the article. You seem to think we are discussing that topic. Reread this thread. We are not discussing smart meters here, at all, in any way. This thread veered off that topic long ago. Got it? Nothing I've written in this thread should be taken as related to smart meters. It is a general discussion of income and wealth inequality. This thread started because someone claimed that unions wanted to stop smart meters in order to protect their union jobs. Are we on the same page now?
It appears you are entirely correct. I had always heard that high recidivism was the reason we treated sex offenders differently. Turns out that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than any other class of crime except murder. So why do we treat them differently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates
So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever? How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease? It's more expensive, as well.
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
The data doesn't lie, and your assertions are simply grounded in wishful thinking, not facts. If you want to show that the middle class is richer than it used to be, provide me with some hard data that disproves the data I already provided.
Back in the fifties, the average family made more money working less hours. A factory worker would make enough to support a family on one income. We had cars, modern appliances, refrigeration, TV, radio, movies... okay, no home computers or Internet, but if those made the average person richer, it would show in the data. As I mentioned, the data includes a 'fudge factor' for things like the Internet and home computers. Without that fudge factor that basically says, "We have the Internet now, so everyone is $1,423 (or whatever) per year richer," the numbers would look even worse. Home computers and the Internet do not make people generically wealthier by their presence, they are just entertainment media for most people, and we already had a ton of entertainment media.
The middle class is worse off than it was fifty years ago. I've provided census data to back up my point. You have made unsupported assertions to the contrary. You do realize how silly it looks when I bring facts and figures to the table and all you can do is say "Nuh uh! Is not! We're richer because I say so!"
Please, either provide something to back up your claims, or admit you are wrong.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-real-reagan-legacy-debunking-myths-about-reagan/blog-396127/
A capitalist is someone who makes most of their income from interest. Capitalism is the lending of money for profit, it is not the free market. You can have a free market without capitalism. Just using capital does not make you a capitalist, hell, communists still use capital. You can also be both a capitalist and an entrepreneur, but they are different things, and you can have entrepreneurship without capitalism and vice versa. Just living and working in a capitalist system does not make you a capitalist any more than working and living in a communist system makes you a communist. Some people disagree with the economic system they live under.
We are a great nation, we can conquer any problem we set our minds to.
Yeah i remember how you captured Osama.
We never wanted to. He's worth so much more to the powers that be as a boogyman. He can't continue to scare and distract us if he's locked up or killed.
You can just say "sperm bank," you don't have to bowdlerize it to "jerk store." If you need some more, just ask, I'm more than happy to donate.
I love a good myth, but "Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union" is kinda boring as myths go.