Why should bars be forced to not allow smoking because the majority of people want it that way? They are not stockholders; they do not have the right to demand a ban from a private business owner.
I'm not going to address your entire post, but I would like to inform you that the $75m cap only applies if BP follows the minimal safety regulations. Also, BP bribed (implicitly or explicitly) MMS regulators with cocaine, sex, and more. And BP is a MNC. Don't act as if it is viewed any other way. Many Americans are stockholders. And yes, US foreign policy is hypocritical. Get the fuck over it. That's how world politics works. Hell, that's how politics in general works.
Look at all the information is listed on Chilling Effects. We know the owner of the copyright (Sony Music, Universal, and Warner seem to be popular on their takedown list), the song titles, and even what links they want removed. I'm changing my homepage from thepiratebay to chillingeffects.
I have an unlimited data plan with Verizon.... I don't even really use it very much, but if they kicked me off and started to charge me per megabyte I would probably use it even less... Fuck Verizon; I can't wait until I get to dump them.
Uh, that's the most ignorant thing I've heard today. The overwhelming majority of people I know (including people who have relatively high incomes) don't always have to have the "latest, shiniest car." If you're an American, I advise you to stop hanging around shallow fucking people. If you're not an American, I advise you to stop being such an ignorant prick.
1. I would never work for the federal government
2. I wouldn't want to work at the TSA for the same reason I don't want to be mall security
3. Shitty pay
4. The joke that is the TSA is only one piece of the overall Homeland Security clusterfuck.
Yes, I agree that libertarian idealism is naive and unworkable. I wouldn't want a libertarian in office who is making decision based his view of an ideal world. I'm not a libertarian, just a conservative who favors smaller government. Libertarians tend to take this concept to an extreme which makes all conservatives look bad.
Yes, but the argument itself is not hypocritical. Some people who have the same argument are hypocrites, but many are not. That's an ad hominem attempt to discredit an argument without even addressing it.
The US government can't get anything right! Oh, what's that? This is an article about the Canadians? Well, we shouldn't let the facts get in the way of an opening to deride the US government.
Social security is good for America, but almost certainly "unconstitutional" (if you are one of those people who reads the Constitution extremely narrowly, and I am not one of those people).
I read it literally with the assistance of reading literature from that time to gain context on what the Founders meant. Even though they were not perfect, it is a travesty to act as if the Constitution is a living document and to just adapt our interpretations at convenience.
The War on Drugs is bad for America, but unquestionably constitutional (interstate commerce). I wish it were unconstitutional, but it is not.
To claim the War on Drugs is completely constitutional would involve making an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If I grow weed in my house, and my state allows this, what business does the Federal government have in coming in and arresting me? Because my weed might somehow enter into the national economy, even if I am only cultivating a small amount for personal consumption? I do not see this as constitutional at all. The Federal government only has the right to step in if the state wants assistance or if the drugs are being transferred across state lines (directly) and this can be proven.
The War on Terror is a hollow phrase, but generally the actions taken are constitutional (war powers).
I don't consider tapping citizens' phones without warrants (or rubber stamped warrants), holding American citizens indefinitely, or stripping citizens' rights (and soon their citizenship) to be constitutional.
The Constitution doesn't mention big business or the military industrial complex, but I'll happily join you in saying those are bad for America. Still, they aren't unconstitutional.
Here are a few examples of things the US government is doing that are unconstitutional and/or bad for America
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
(emphasis mine)
That does mean bringing back slavery, as slavery was a core institution at the time the US were founded. Too often people say "but it's not in the constitution!" either as a knee-jerk reaction or as a weak attempt to say that something is not permissible. How about instead of talking about the constitution all the time we have a real debate?
What bugs me is that so much of the so-called "states rights" movement is nothing more than a series of pick-and-choose ideas. We don't want federal programs (except Medicare! And agricultural subsidies! And small-business loans!) We don't want the federal government involved in schools (but we want school prayers! And no evolution!) We don't want environmental regulations (but now the Louisiana governor wants the government involved in cleaning the oil spill!) And on and on and on... The constant whining for small government has little credibility anymore.
Uh, just because some people arguing for small government are hypocrites does not make all of us hypocrites and doesn't wash away our arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Just have a seat over there.
Our right to bear arms protects our right to freedom of information from tyranny.
They don't have the right because it is not their property.
Do you not understand the difference between discussing opinions and petitioning?
Why should bars be forced to not allow smoking because the majority of people want it that way? They are not stockholders; they do not have the right to demand a ban from a private business owner.
I'm not going to address your entire post, but I would like to inform you that the $75m cap only applies if BP follows the minimal safety regulations. Also, BP bribed (implicitly or explicitly) MMS regulators with cocaine, sex, and more. And BP is a MNC. Don't act as if it is viewed any other way. Many Americans are stockholders. And yes, US foreign policy is hypocritical. Get the fuck over it. That's how world politics works. Hell, that's how politics in general works.
Look at all the information is listed on Chilling Effects. We know the owner of the copyright (Sony Music, Universal, and Warner seem to be popular on their takedown list), the song titles, and even what links they want removed. I'm changing my homepage from thepiratebay to chillingeffects.
I have an unlimited data plan with Verizon.... I don't even really use it very much, but if they kicked me off and started to charge me per megabyte I would probably use it even less... Fuck Verizon; I can't wait until I get to dump them.
Apparently the mods cannot read either.
Easy solution: store entrails of the last king/priest (whichever comes first) in liquid nitrogen and thaw them before use.
I love how this is modded +5 insightful.
Learn how to identify sarcasm.
Poe's law.
Uh, that's the most ignorant thing I've heard today. The overwhelming majority of people I know (including people who have relatively high incomes) don't always have to have the "latest, shiniest car." If you're an American, I advise you to stop hanging around shallow fucking people. If you're not an American, I advise you to stop being such an ignorant prick.
1. I would never work for the federal government 2. I wouldn't want to work at the TSA for the same reason I don't want to be mall security 3. Shitty pay 4. The joke that is the TSA is only one piece of the overall Homeland Security clusterfuck.
They're the rentacops of the airports except they actually have authority.
Thanks for the car analogy. Now everything is clear.
We're going to report some crimes.
Try the junk shot first.
Yes, I agree that libertarian idealism is naive and unworkable. I wouldn't want a libertarian in office who is making decision based his view of an ideal world. I'm not a libertarian, just a conservative who favors smaller government. Libertarians tend to take this concept to an extreme which makes all conservatives look bad.
Yes, but the argument itself is not hypocritical. Some people who have the same argument are hypocrites, but many are not. That's an ad hominem attempt to discredit an argument without even addressing it.
The US government can't get anything right! Oh, what's that? This is an article about the Canadians? Well, we shouldn't let the facts get in the way of an opening to deride the US government.
Is your girlfriend hot?
How does it wash away my arguments and make me wrong?
Those are all tough examples.
Social security is good for America, but almost certainly "unconstitutional" (if you are one of those people who reads the Constitution extremely narrowly, and I am not one of those people).
I read it literally with the assistance of reading literature from that time to gain context on what the Founders meant. Even though they were not perfect, it is a travesty to act as if the Constitution is a living document and to just adapt our interpretations at convenience.
The War on Drugs is bad for America, but unquestionably constitutional (interstate commerce). I wish it were unconstitutional, but it is not.
To claim the War on Drugs is completely constitutional would involve making an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If I grow weed in my house, and my state allows this, what business does the Federal government have in coming in and arresting me? Because my weed might somehow enter into the national economy, even if I am only cultivating a small amount for personal consumption? I do not see this as constitutional at all. The Federal government only has the right to step in if the state wants assistance or if the drugs are being transferred across state lines (directly) and this can be proven.
The War on Terror is a hollow phrase, but generally the actions taken are constitutional (war powers).
I don't consider tapping citizens' phones without warrants (or rubber stamped warrants), holding American citizens indefinitely, or stripping citizens' rights (and soon their citizenship) to be constitutional.
The Constitution doesn't mention big business or the military industrial complex, but I'll happily join you in saying those are bad for America. Still, they aren't unconstitutional.
Here are a few examples of things the US government is doing that are unconstitutional and/or bad for America
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
(emphasis mine)
That does mean bringing back slavery, as slavery was a core institution at the time the US were founded. Too often people say "but it's not in the constitution!" either as a knee-jerk reaction or as a weak attempt to say that something is not permissible. How about instead of talking about the constitution all the time we have a real debate?
What bugs me is that so much of the so-called "states rights" movement is nothing more than a series of pick-and-choose ideas. We don't want federal programs (except Medicare! And agricultural subsidies! And small-business loans!) We don't want the federal government involved in schools (but we want school prayers! And no evolution!) We don't want environmental regulations (but now the Louisiana governor wants the government involved in cleaning the oil spill!) And on and on and on... The constant whining for small government has little credibility anymore.
Uh, just because some people arguing for small government are hypocrites does not make all of us hypocrites and doesn't wash away our arguments.