Uh, if your boss has stated that he will fire you if he does not watch you vote and you are in the US, you have a huge case against your boss. Even the smallest shred of evidence beyond "I said it on the internet" will be enough to mount a federal case.
I was referring to the Citizens United case but now that you mention it, isn't it wonderful how those two liberal asshats (yes, McCain is a liberal) allowed certain corporations to expend unlimited amounts of money making political speech. Equal under the law my ass.
And isn't it wonderful that they actually had blackout periods restricting when we are allowed to make political speech? I guess I am supposed to rejoice at the 270 days they still allowed free speech instead of focusing on the 90 where they removed it.
Anonymous may want to check with/. user Cardoor (3488091) as he seems to be convinced that the Paris perpetrators were the agents of western governments. We wouldn't want Anonymous to go off against the wrong target.
That would be because you didn't actually read the decision nor the dissenting opinion and educate yourself. The opinions discuss that a ruling against Citizens United would probably have required shutting down essentially all political reporting as it essentially all political reporting is done by employees of corporations and there is no way to legally distinguish one corporation from another, especially when the corporation directly involved in the case was formed for the sole purpose of producing a film about a politician. The case had nothing to do with corporations donating money; it had to do with corporations publishing political material.
While I mostly agree with your general sentiment, you are wrong about the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is to point out that the individual rights that had been listed in the Constitution was, and is, not a comprehensive list of the rights of individuals. It is a reminder that the US Constitution's purpose is to itemize what the federal government is allowed to do and that if the US Constitution does not specifically say that the federal government is allowed or required to do something, then it is not allowed to do it.
Well belief in the impending doom about to be wrought because of our use of oil generally resides side-by-side with a general disbelief in market forces, so you shouldn't be confused at all.
and what does 9/11 have to do with the recent happenings in Paris? Are you actually saying that the shootings didn't happen? Or that the two shooters were really CIA (or similar) agents pretending to be Islamic nutjobs? Please do tell.
What really blows my mind is that you are more willing to believe that such massive conspiracies involving thousands of people can actually be kept secret.
dude, the perps in Paris said they were there to avenge the fact that the targeted publishers had been poking fun at Mohammed (a dead man). Did I use a ridiculous analogy? Sure, but is it really any more ridiculous than what really happened?
Exactly how am I misunderstanding the "here and now" reality of what happened in Paris? Or are you suggesting that I should not have attempted to discuss what happened in Paris because it was in the (very recent) past? How is that any different than you discussing my post that was also in the very recent past?
Yes, in the states we call such speech "inciting to violence" or "inciting riot" and such and it is banned. One problem the Europeans face is that in their unwavering rush to be "tolerant" they started passing laws banning speech that would offend certain groups. All this has done is convince members of those certain groups that they can now take the law into their own hands and shut down such speech by whatever means necessary to preserve their "right to not be offended." And yes, the government of France did play into this with their ministers running around condemning the magazine for publishing stuff.
Kind of like how certain US officials knowingly tried to explain away one of our Middle East embassies being overrun by terrorists as simple and understandable retaliation for some idiot in Florida burning some books.
Well, it would help if you Europeans would stop talking about the necessity of having laws that protect people from being offended and such. That sort of thing is very much anti-freedom of speech.
Oh, you are one of those... Yes, please do wait for the more credible sources to inform you that this attack was not actually carried out by Islamic terrorists but was instead carried out by the bush families henchmen for the purpose of drumming up support to Jeb's presidential campaign and that it might also be possible that Obama's henchmen provided transportation (and special effects support from Hollywood) so that he could further clamp down on the political cartoonists here in the US.
In the meantime, please stay out of the conversation until such time as you have proof of this conspiracy to contribute.
So people being killed because they dared to publish some satire that mocks living and dead people does not matter in your world? Are you saying that people only care about the free expression of ideas because pretty people informed them about it? What exactly are you trying to say?
Would you feel the same way if some Amish people went on a rampage and destroyed the offices of FSF for daring to promote the use of modern technology?
Are you saying we should just live our lives and keep to ourselves and never discuss the goings on around us? Why then did you create an account at a site dedicated to discussing the goings on around us?
Uh yes, France decided to tell people that they cannot completely veil themselves in public spaces because terrorists were talking about doing exactly that. Heaven forbid that a schoolgirl should actually show her face to her teachers and fellow students so that everyone can interact properly in the classroom.
And yet those on the left in the US are constantly yammering on about how we should not be expecting any kind of integration, especially culturally, here in the US either. I used to view myself as enjoying a multi-cultural outlook because I like different ethnic foods and I find some of the different ethnic holiday traditions and such quite entertaining and then I realized that the true definition of multi-culturalism is that immigrant communities should isolate themselves and practice only the traditions from their "homeland" and never dilute that with anything remotely considered American.
No, you made the statement that the rich pay far less than their "share" of the taxes. I pointed out that the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes. The top 10% don't come close to representing the middle class. I then pointed out how other liberal assholes make shit up.
but Bush was so stupid that he was smart enough to take control of less than what, 3%, of known oil reserves and totally control the world market. Right, he was so stupid he couldn't do anything but then he was so smart he engineered all kinds of conspiracies.
The rich pay none of the taxes except for the 70+ percent of all income taxes paid in the US. And according to some libtard on public radio today, only the top 40% percent buy petro products so only the top 40%, according to this particular libtard, pay any transportation taxes or the taxes on natural gas and heating oil. She then went on to claim that only the upper and high end of the middle class are not renting so only the super rich pay any property tax... So exactly what taxes are the non-rich paying.
Not only off-topic but also factually incorrect. Utah is to Idaho as California is to Oregon or as South Australia is to Northern Territory or even as England is to Scotland.
or the analog becomes digital if you turn it around. The point is that the only faithful reproduction of a how a trumpet causes waves of compressed air is a trumpet. No series of microphone -> vacuum tubes -> magnets -> flexible diaphragm will produce exactly the same set of waves as the trumpet (or piano strings or vocal cords, etc.) You get to the point that the difference is not perceivable by whatever instrument you choose to measure with and then call it perfect. A great number of people choose to use their own ears as the instrument with which they measure and when they no longer perceive a difference, then the reproduction may be considered as perfect for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, if your boss has stated that he will fire you if he does not watch you vote and you are in the US, you have a huge case against your boss. Even the smallest shred of evidence beyond "I said it on the internet" will be enough to mount a federal case.
I was referring to the Citizens United case but now that you mention it, isn't it wonderful how those two liberal asshats (yes, McCain is a liberal) allowed certain corporations to expend unlimited amounts of money making political speech. Equal under the law my ass.
And isn't it wonderful that they actually had blackout periods restricting when we are allowed to make political speech? I guess I am supposed to rejoice at the 270 days they still allowed free speech instead of focusing on the 90 where they removed it.
Unless you live in France or the Netherlands.
Anonymous may want to check with /. user Cardoor (3488091) as he seems to be convinced that the Paris perpetrators were the agents of western governments. We wouldn't want Anonymous to go off against the wrong target.
And our constitutional republic seems to be trying its best to follow suit.
It also ensured that CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, et al are allowed to continue to comment about politics. But hey, who cares about that aspect of it?
That would be because you didn't actually read the decision nor the dissenting opinion and educate yourself. The opinions discuss that a ruling against Citizens United would probably have required shutting down essentially all political reporting as it essentially all political reporting is done by employees of corporations and there is no way to legally distinguish one corporation from another, especially when the corporation directly involved in the case was formed for the sole purpose of producing a film about a politician. The case had nothing to do with corporations donating money; it had to do with corporations publishing political material.
While I mostly agree with your general sentiment, you are wrong about the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is to point out that the individual rights that had been listed in the Constitution was, and is, not a comprehensive list of the rights of individuals. It is a reminder that the US Constitution's purpose is to itemize what the federal government is allowed to do and that if the US Constitution does not specifically say that the federal government is allowed or required to do something, then it is not allowed to do it.
It is sad that far too many folks forget that.
Well belief in the impending doom about to be wrought because of our use of oil generally resides side-by-side with a general disbelief in market forces, so you shouldn't be confused at all.
and what does 9/11 have to do with the recent happenings in Paris? Are you actually saying that the shootings didn't happen? Or that the two shooters were really CIA (or similar) agents pretending to be Islamic nutjobs? Please do tell.
What really blows my mind is that you are more willing to believe that such massive conspiracies involving thousands of people can actually be kept secret.
dude, the perps in Paris said they were there to avenge the fact that the targeted publishers had been poking fun at Mohammed (a dead man). Did I use a ridiculous analogy? Sure, but is it really any more ridiculous than what really happened?
Exactly how am I misunderstanding the "here and now" reality of what happened in Paris? Or are you suggesting that I should not have attempted to discuss what happened in Paris because it was in the (very recent) past? How is that any different than you discussing my post that was also in the very recent past?
Yes, in the states we call such speech "inciting to violence" or "inciting riot" and such and it is banned. One problem the Europeans face is that in their unwavering rush to be "tolerant" they started passing laws banning speech that would offend certain groups. All this has done is convince members of those certain groups that they can now take the law into their own hands and shut down such speech by whatever means necessary to preserve their "right to not be offended." And yes, the government of France did play into this with their ministers running around condemning the magazine for publishing stuff.
Kind of like how certain US officials knowingly tried to explain away one of our Middle East embassies being overrun by terrorists as simple and understandable retaliation for some idiot in Florida burning some books.
Well, it would help if you Europeans would stop talking about the necessity of having laws that protect people from being offended and such. That sort of thing is very much anti-freedom of speech.
Oh, you are one of those... Yes, please do wait for the more credible sources to inform you that this attack was not actually carried out by Islamic terrorists but was instead carried out by the bush families henchmen for the purpose of drumming up support to Jeb's presidential campaign and that it might also be possible that Obama's henchmen provided transportation (and special effects support from Hollywood) so that he could further clamp down on the political cartoonists here in the US.
In the meantime, please stay out of the conversation until such time as you have proof of this conspiracy to contribute.
So people being killed because they dared to publish some satire that mocks living and dead people does not matter in your world? Are you saying that people only care about the free expression of ideas because pretty people informed them about it? What exactly are you trying to say?
Would you feel the same way if some Amish people went on a rampage and destroyed the offices of FSF for daring to promote the use of modern technology?
Are you saying we should just live our lives and keep to ourselves and never discuss the goings on around us? Why then did you create an account at a site dedicated to discussing the goings on around us?
Uh yes, France decided to tell people that they cannot completely veil themselves in public spaces because terrorists were talking about doing exactly that. Heaven forbid that a schoolgirl should actually show her face to her teachers and fellow students so that everyone can interact properly in the classroom.
And yet those on the left in the US are constantly yammering on about how we should not be expecting any kind of integration, especially culturally, here in the US either. I used to view myself as enjoying a multi-cultural outlook because I like different ethnic foods and I find some of the different ethnic holiday traditions and such quite entertaining and then I realized that the true definition of multi-culturalism is that immigrant communities should isolate themselves and practice only the traditions from their "homeland" and never dilute that with anything remotely considered American.
No, you made the statement that the rich pay far less than their "share" of the taxes. I pointed out that the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes. The top 10% don't come close to representing the middle class. I then pointed out how other liberal assholes make shit up.
Uh, you mean the system of telling time that is based on seconds, minutes, hours, etc.?
and in the sense you are talking so is every other form of government ever but much more so.
but Bush was so stupid that he was smart enough to take control of less than what, 3%, of known oil reserves and totally control the world market. Right, he was so stupid he couldn't do anything but then he was so smart he engineered all kinds of conspiracies.
The rich pay none of the taxes except for the 70+ percent of all income taxes paid in the US. And according to some libtard on public radio today, only the top 40% percent buy petro products so only the top 40%, according to this particular libtard, pay any transportation taxes or the taxes on natural gas and heating oil. She then went on to claim that only the upper and high end of the middle class are not renting so only the super rich pay any property tax... So exactly what taxes are the non-rich paying.
No Utah is south of Idaho as California is south of Oregon. At least it is on every map I've ever seen.
Not only off-topic but also factually incorrect. Utah is to Idaho as California is to Oregon or as South Australia is to Northern Territory or even as England is to Scotland.
or the analog becomes digital if you turn it around. The point is that the only faithful reproduction of a how a trumpet causes waves of compressed air is a trumpet. No series of microphone -> vacuum tubes -> magnets -> flexible diaphragm will produce exactly the same set of waves as the trumpet (or piano strings or vocal cords, etc.) You get to the point that the difference is not perceivable by whatever instrument you choose to measure with and then call it perfect. A great number of people choose to use their own ears as the instrument with which they measure and when they no longer perceive a difference, then the reproduction may be considered as perfect for them.