Make it easy for us. List exactly what the US government is now doing, that you think is
a) against the Constitution
b) bad for America
For example, is Social Security bad for America? Or how about the Civil Rights bill, including the forced desegration of privately owned public services? Or how about NASA - that's definitely not in the Constitution.
There's a lot of people who are pretty vague about what they mean, when they say "as the founders originally intended".
Is Social Security bad for America? I wouldn't say so, but whether or not it is Constitutional is debatable.
Here are a few examples of things the US government is doing that are unconstitutional and/or bad for America:
The War on Marijuana
The War on Terror (not fighting terrorism, but eroding our rights and trampling the Constitution
Oh, but the interstate commerce clause means the Federal government can do anything it wants as long as they say it has something to do with interstate commerce!
Quite a few. The first DVD collection I bought what the Godfather. I basically bought all the memorable ones. And yes, I purchased these without hesitating because I knew that I enjoyed them.
I probably wouldn't have bought any of them if I would have never pirated them. Aside from the really shitty movies that I felt were a waste of my time, I've bought or rented most of the movies I pirated and enjoyed enough to remember.
The minimum wage is set to prevent exploitation of workers. A maximum wage should be set because they don't contribute enough(in your opinion)? And you didn't answer my other questions...
Doug Suttles later stated that BP is hard at work to come up with even cooler names for their next failed attempts to stop the oil leak. When questioned about their competence to do the job, he was quoted saying "we're stuck between overkill and final death."
Yeah, what a reliable source for the study--- an internet survey. America does produce lots of crappy beer, but we also produce some of the best beer. It's simple economics. The crap beer is cheap and more in demand.
If they aren't contributing, why are they being paid? What gives the government the right to tell someone that their labor has a set value? If private companies are paying them, that's fine. If a crime is being committed, they should be prosecuted. But if they get paid more than you think they should be paid, how does this justify their salaries being capped?
When I was younger, I loved movies. I pirated them quite frequently and rarely paid for them. I occasionally went to movies, but normally I didn't pay. As I am growing older, the money I am spending on media is increasing. I go to the movies a lot more, rent more, and pay for Rhapsody and other services. Should I have simply not watched movies when I was younger? Perhaps it was immoral to pirate them. Even so, I did not have the money; now that I do I pay.
You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor.
While the divide between the classes is large, it's a joke to claim that the majority is poor. Most Americans are above the poverty line and live well. Very few people are actually "poor."
I didn't think it was that good of a movie. The critics (from what I've heard) raved about it, but I found the combat scenes to be unrealistic, the dialogue to be rather boring, and the plot uninteresting. One ridiculous scene involved a gun jammed because there was blood on the bullet. Seriously? Using one of the best sniper rifles in the world and blood on the bullet jammed the gun? Of course removing the bullet and cleaning it with spit did the trick. Interestingly enough, all of this was done right next to where someone had just been shot. What a ridiculous scene. Maybe they didn't make that much money because it wasn't that good of a movie... Also, Avatar was in the theaters at the same time and everyone was talking about that. Either way, I bet they're just suing some Bit Torrent noobs and they won't accomplish anything. I hope that everyone fights the suits so we can see what happens when they take 5,000 people to court....
I've already submitted a patent for denim material that covers from several inches above the knees to the waist. A button will be used to hold the material together. I call this invention the "not-longs." I've checked and there is no prior art. I am waiting for my patent to be approved.
Am I the only one that is seeing a quick progression towards a police state fueled largely by corporate interests and technological advances? I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government. Luckily we have all these new laws to stop "domestic terrorism." I mean sure, we're giving up our constitutional rights without pause to be safe from terrorists, but who are the real terrorists? Those who invade and occupy foreign countries with the blood and money of the general population and redirect all profits towards multinational corporations? Those who bring us decades of class warfare in the "War on Drugs?" Those who masquerade as populist reformers who are really just manipulating the perceptions of their actions and doing entirely contrary actions? We have millions in prison, huge debt, legal corruption running rampant, undemocratic elections (I don't consider elections decided by the number of dollars you can get from corporations to be democratic), and so on.:(
If the tree is on my property then no, it isn't okay. If it is on public property but you are continuously spying on me it might be criminal harassment or stalking. Either way, I wouldn't really be overly concerned and I certainty wouldn't respond with a lawsuit or demand criminal charges be brought up against you.
Google collected information that could be used to identify users, including "the user's unique or chosen Wi-Fi network name , the unique number given to the user's hardware...[and] data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio, and VoIP information being sent over the network by the user," the suit stated.
That should read:
Google collected information that could be used to identify users, including "the user's unique or chosen Wi-Fi network name , the unique number given to the user's hardware...[and] data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio, and VoIP information being broadcasted publicly by the user," the suit stated.
Slashdot Mirror
Make it easy for us. List exactly what the US government is now doing, that you think is a) against the Constitution b) bad for America For example, is Social Security bad for America? Or how about the Civil Rights bill, including the forced desegration of privately owned public services? Or how about NASA - that's definitely not in the Constitution. There's a lot of people who are pretty vague about what they mean, when they say "as the founders originally intended".
Is Social Security bad for America? I wouldn't say so, but whether or not it is Constitutional is debatable.
Here are a few examples of things the US government is doing that are unconstitutional and/or bad for America:
The War on Marijuana
The War on Terror (not fighting terrorism, but eroding our rights and trampling the Constitution
Selling out to big business
The military industrial complex
Just a few.
Oh, but the interstate commerce clause means the Federal government can do anything it wants as long as they say it has something to do with interstate commerce!
Sounds like a lively party.
We're not a capitalist country anymore; we're corporatists.
Quite a few. The first DVD collection I bought what the Godfather. I basically bought all the memorable ones. And yes, I purchased these without hesitating because I knew that I enjoyed them.
I probably wouldn't have bought any of them if I would have never pirated them. Aside from the really shitty movies that I felt were a waste of my time, I've bought or rented most of the movies I pirated and enjoyed enough to remember.
mean, seriously, does it impede your right to free speech if you are not allowed to produce and circulate child porn?
It depends on how you would define child porn. Some would argue that having small breasts makes you a child.
The minimum wage is set to prevent exploitation of workers. A maximum wage should be set because they don't contribute enough(in your opinion)? And you didn't answer my other questions...
Doug Suttles later stated that BP is hard at work to come up with even cooler names for their next failed attempts to stop the oil leak. When questioned about their competence to do the job, he was quoted saying "we're stuck between overkill and final death."
Yeah, what a reliable source for the study--- an internet survey. America does produce lots of crappy beer, but we also produce some of the best beer. It's simple economics. The crap beer is cheap and more in demand.
If they aren't contributing, why are they being paid? What gives the government the right to tell someone that their labor has a set value? If private companies are paying them, that's fine. If a crime is being committed, they should be prosecuted. But if they get paid more than you think they should be paid, how does this justify their salaries being capped?
When I was younger, I loved movies. I pirated them quite frequently and rarely paid for them. I occasionally went to movies, but normally I didn't pay. As I am growing older, the money I am spending on media is increasing. I go to the movies a lot more, rent more, and pay for Rhapsody and other services. Should I have simply not watched movies when I was younger? Perhaps it was immoral to pirate them. Even so, I did not have the money; now that I do I pay.
If they are losing money and getting bonuses, who is at fault? Them, or the people paying them?
Why do you hate the rich? Americans deserve a certain standard of living and opportunities, but why should we punish those who succeed?
You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor.
While the divide between the classes is large, it's a joke to claim that the majority is poor. Most Americans are above the poverty line and live well. Very few people are actually "poor."
Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?
That doesn't really apply in a civil case.
Now the Navy is doing Dance Dance Revolution for Boot Camp? Have they not been hearing the jokes about themselves?
Word is that 127.0.0.1 was the first to be sued.
I didn't think it was that good of a movie. The critics (from what I've heard) raved about it, but I found the combat scenes to be unrealistic, the dialogue to be rather boring, and the plot uninteresting. One ridiculous scene involved a gun jammed because there was blood on the bullet. Seriously? Using one of the best sniper rifles in the world and blood on the bullet jammed the gun? Of course removing the bullet and cleaning it with spit did the trick. Interestingly enough, all of this was done right next to where someone had just been shot. What a ridiculous scene. Maybe they didn't make that much money because it wasn't that good of a movie... Also, Avatar was in the theaters at the same time and everyone was talking about that. Either way, I bet they're just suing some Bit Torrent noobs and they won't accomplish anything. I hope that everyone fights the suits so we can see what happens when they take 5,000 people to court....
I've already submitted a patent for denim material that covers from several inches above the knees to the waist. A button will be used to hold the material together. I call this invention the "not-longs." I've checked and there is no prior art. I am waiting for my patent to be approved.
The Speedtest data could give the US government far more information to work with in setting priorities for its National Broadband Plan..."
I wonder if we'll give away billions to ISPs without getting anything in return again.
IS THAT YOU ZUCK?
Am I the only one that is seeing a quick progression towards a police state fueled largely by corporate interests and technological advances? I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government. Luckily we have all these new laws to stop "domestic terrorism." I mean sure, we're giving up our constitutional rights without pause to be safe from terrorists, but who are the real terrorists? Those who invade and occupy foreign countries with the blood and money of the general population and redirect all profits towards multinational corporations? Those who bring us decades of class warfare in the "War on Drugs?" Those who masquerade as populist reformers who are really just manipulating the perceptions of their actions and doing entirely contrary actions? We have millions in prison, huge debt, legal corruption running rampant, undemocratic elections (I don't consider elections decided by the number of dollars you can get from corporations to be democratic), and so on. :(
Someone needs to pirate the Olympics on this wireless.
If the tree is on my property then no, it isn't okay. If it is on public property but you are continuously spying on me it might be criminal harassment or stalking. Either way, I wouldn't really be overly concerned and I certainty wouldn't respond with a lawsuit or demand criminal charges be brought up against you.
Google collected information that could be used to identify users, including "the user's unique or chosen Wi-Fi network name , the unique number given to the user's hardware...[and] data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio, and VoIP information being sent over the network by the user," the suit stated.
That should read:
Google collected information that could be used to identify users, including "the user's unique or chosen Wi-Fi network name , the unique number given to the user's hardware...[and] data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio, and VoIP information being broadcasted publicly by the user," the suit stated.