Well, the part about "you" meaning the government was created by liberals trying to prove that "the people" really means state governments or everyone collectively as a group but not any individual person.
I really wish they would stop doing that and admit that "the people" means every single one of us individually.
Oh, the beauty of silence... or fools (idiots) not remaining silent.
Pot, meet kettle.
A libertarian would whole-heartedly agree that the US Constitution absolutely does not require a business to accommodate anyone's needs or desires. For instance, libertarians are absolutely against such things as the EEOC penalizing employers for not hiring based on race or political viewpoints and such. Libertarians view the constitution as allowing people to assemble with other like-minded people and this inherently means that they can choose to not associate with not-like-minded people.
I like the definition I heard a Black man on TV use once a few years ago.
"Freedom does not mean doing what you can get away with, doing what you please. It means, instead, having the opportunity to do what you ought to do--for family and for community and for humanity as a whole."
While you may not be physically safe you are legally and philosophically safe. That is why the US allows many modes of self-defense. People may be upset by your words but that does not give them the "right" to harm you over it.
Actually, they are not supposed to reconcile anything "with the current societal views." That is what causes all the problems. When current societal views say that "freedom of the press" only means printing or speaking viewpoints approved by the government and the government says that believing in the FOSS ideals is no longer allowed are we still okay with SCOTUS reconciling "with current societal views" or would we prefer that SCOTUS focus solely on the original intent of the framers (or authors of more recent amendments)?
Your example actually shows where SCOTUS fell for the current societal views trap and a later court had to correct the course back to be more in alignment with the original intent. That is, we are free to express ideas that are not popular; even ideas that are against the government. So far, nobody has been able to show that the framers were advocates of lawlessness or outright lying so the current interpretation is that free speech was never intended to allow such speech.
Another good example to see why adherents to all sides of the political spectrum should want the original interpretation model is the privacy of email and other cloud-storage. Why should personal communications via email or text message be viewed differently than snail mail. The court views Fedex and UPS the same as USPS, so why not email and text messages? I've seen it argued that because cloud-stored documents are in the hands of a third-party that the 4th amendment no longer applies to them. Really? The 4th amendment applies to my safe deposit box at the bank and to my storage unit I might rent and my property in them is being held by a third party. Are the things I type and store in the cloud any less my personal effects than the things I type on paper and store in that safe deposit box? No. But because "original intent" was getting in the way of the liberal agenda for so many years, society through it out as a concept and treats the phrase about the same way that the word Voldemort is treated in the Harry Potter universe.
Well, they managed to live through at least one other global warming and then global cooling cycle without benefit of modern technology so why are we (or they) worried about another one?
Lives saved because of a DDT ban? Are you seriously that stupid? The DDT ban has killed millions from unchecked Malaria that otherwise would not have contracted Malaria.
And the other AC also pointed out that your "generally accepted consequence" isn't an actual consequence. I think most rational readers would understand the challenge to mean actual consequences. If you were really playing at fairy-tale consequences, why didn't you go with "the 4 million residents of the yet to be discovered Untereisland will die when global warming causes their entire infrastructure to melt away and all of their Unicorns (which are their only source of food as they deathly allergic to any other food) to die."
And not a single climatologist (scientist) even attempted to claim any relationship as those storms were not really outside of previously recorded maximums. A few climatology "spokespeople" (non-scientists) tried to make those claims just so idiots like you would reprint them. They were rebuffed by the former group.
Yup. It is the USes fault for having allowed the Chinese economy to reach the point where it can pollute as much as it is. Just like it is the fault of the US that the USSR was so environmentally irresponsible. What the US should have been doing is waging actual warfare to shut those nations down so they couldn't do all that.
So my investing started about a year after the second to last bust you mention and I am still way ahead. I've looked back in history a few times to see howat the "average" investment in the market starting around the first bust and it is way up since then.
Investing is very risky short-term and almost never risky long term if spread out so "all our eggs are not in one basket."
XcepticZP said... "that's the problem with statists."
FYI... you are talking about our reality to someone who is living in their own reality where markets have never worked and planned economies have always worked flawlessly.
But Italy let Knox go and she came home to the US. Now Italy decided it wanted to retry her for the same crime which is not kosher in the US. That is what the GP was talking about. Italy had her and didn't convict. The US court system frowns upon endlessly trying an individual over and over for the same act.
Now, if Italy can find some other corpse that Amanda Knox supposedly created, the US would most likely turn her over fairly quickly.
And as long as we in the States maintain at least some attempt to enforce our borders (just like every other country/economic union in the world), those billions won't be competing with my local burger flipper. Some jobs just are not outsourceable.
"the demand for the goods will drop and so will prices" Do you realize that you just quoted basic market theory while seeming to rail against the market?
And when the prices drop, then the displaced worker will be able to purchase the same amount for less. When this is taken to the ridiculous end, all those who are demanding that we adopt the utopia of people only doing what they want and still having everything they want might become a reality. However, most things break down before they get that far.
The largest in the US paid anywhere between 25% and 50% of their revenue, but keep spouting that nonsense that anything less than 100% is not their fare share.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that social media is tailor made for witch hunts as the whole point of witch hunts is to incorrectly convict and execute somebody.
Well, the part about "you" meaning the government was created by liberals trying to prove that "the people" really means state governments or everyone collectively as a group but not any individual person.
I really wish they would stop doing that and admit that "the people" means every single one of us individually.
Oh, the beauty of silence... or fools (idiots) not remaining silent.
Pot, meet kettle.
A libertarian would whole-heartedly agree that the US Constitution absolutely does not require a business to accommodate anyone's needs or desires. For instance, libertarians are absolutely against such things as the EEOC penalizing employers for not hiring based on race or political viewpoints and such. Libertarians view the constitution as allowing people to assemble with other like-minded people and this inherently means that they can choose to not associate with not-like-minded people.
I like the definition I heard a Black man on TV use once a few years ago.
"Freedom does not mean doing what you can get away with, doing what you please. It means, instead, having the opportunity to do what you ought to do--for family and for community and for humanity as a whole."
While you may not be physically safe you are legally and philosophically safe. That is why the US allows many modes of self-defense. People may be upset by your words but that does not give them the "right" to harm you over it.
Actually, they are not supposed to reconcile anything "with the current societal views." That is what causes all the problems. When current societal views say that "freedom of the press" only means printing or speaking viewpoints approved by the government and the government says that believing in the FOSS ideals is no longer allowed are we still okay with SCOTUS reconciling "with current societal views" or would we prefer that SCOTUS focus solely on the original intent of the framers (or authors of more recent amendments)?
Your example actually shows where SCOTUS fell for the current societal views trap and a later court had to correct the course back to be more in alignment with the original intent. That is, we are free to express ideas that are not popular; even ideas that are against the government. So far, nobody has been able to show that the framers were advocates of lawlessness or outright lying so the current interpretation is that free speech was never intended to allow such speech.
Another good example to see why adherents to all sides of the political spectrum should want the original interpretation model is the privacy of email and other cloud-storage. Why should personal communications via email or text message be viewed differently than snail mail. The court views Fedex and UPS the same as USPS, so why not email and text messages? I've seen it argued that because cloud-stored documents are in the hands of a third-party that the 4th amendment no longer applies to them. Really? The 4th amendment applies to my safe deposit box at the bank and to my storage unit I might rent and my property in them is being held by a third party. Are the things I type and store in the cloud any less my personal effects than the things I type on paper and store in that safe deposit box? No. But because "original intent" was getting in the way of the liberal agenda for so many years, society through it out as a concept and treats the phrase about the same way that the word Voldemort is treated in the Harry Potter universe.
Ff it is the largest then it is both exceptional and superior. Exceptional and superior don't have to be good do they.
Well, they managed to live through at least one other global warming and then global cooling cycle without benefit of modern technology so why are we (or they) worried about another one?
a bit? Are you British and showing off your legendary skills at understatement?
but the TV keeps saying that Bush Jr destroyed the surplus Clinton (our first Black president) had going. That is all that matters.
BTW, F*** liberals (not that mine helps my argument anymore than your F helped yours)
Lives saved because of a DDT ban? Are you seriously that stupid? The DDT ban has killed millions from unchecked Malaria that otherwise would not have contracted Malaria.
And the other AC also pointed out that your "generally accepted consequence" isn't an actual consequence. I think most rational readers would understand the challenge to mean actual consequences. If you were really playing at fairy-tale consequences, why didn't you go with "the 4 million residents of the yet to be discovered Untereisland will die when global warming causes their entire infrastructure to melt away and all of their Unicorns (which are their only source of food as they deathly allergic to any other food) to die."
The US' fault.
And not a single climatologist (scientist) even attempted to claim any relationship as those storms were not really outside of previously recorded maximums. A few climatology "spokespeople" (non-scientists) tried to make those claims just so idiots like you would reprint them. They were rebuffed by the former group.
Yup. It is the USes fault for having allowed the Chinese economy to reach the point where it can pollute as much as it is. Just like it is the fault of the US that the USSR was so environmentally irresponsible. What the US should have been doing is waging actual warfare to shut those nations down so they couldn't do all that.
Why not? The whole of AGW is melodrama.
But, just like with patents, its on the internet and 'puter so it must be a completely new idea.
So my investing started about a year after the second to last bust you mention and I am still way ahead. I've looked back in history a few times to see howat the "average" investment in the market starting around the first bust and it is way up since then.
Investing is very risky short-term and almost never risky long term if spread out so "all our eggs are not in one basket."
XcepticZP said... "that's the problem with statists."
FYI... you are talking about our reality to someone who is living in their own reality where markets have never worked and planned economies have always worked flawlessly.
But Italy let Knox go and she came home to the US. Now Italy decided it wanted to retry her for the same crime which is not kosher in the US. That is what the GP was talking about. Italy had her and didn't convict. The US court system frowns upon endlessly trying an individual over and over for the same act.
Now, if Italy can find some other corpse that Amanda Knox supposedly created, the US would most likely turn her over fairly quickly.
And as long as we in the States maintain at least some attempt to enforce our borders (just like every other country/economic union in the world), those billions won't be competing with my local burger flipper. Some jobs just are not outsourceable.
"the demand for the goods will drop and so will prices" Do you realize that you just quoted basic market theory while seeming to rail against the market?
And when the prices drop, then the displaced worker will be able to purchase the same amount for less. When this is taken to the ridiculous end, all those who are demanding that we adopt the utopia of people only doing what they want and still having everything they want might become a reality. However, most things break down before they get that far.
The largest in the US paid anywhere between 25% and 50% of their revenue, but keep spouting that nonsense that anything less than 100% is not their fare share.
I frequently have that experience here.
...but you can't count the benefits as pay! The unions sure aren't when complaining about their low pay.