It is surprising, watching the entire WikiLeaks controversy, how quickly American corporations discard the concepts and ideals of the American constitution.
Which concepts and ideals in the American constitution are being discarded by corporations? Since when do we expect corporations to be the source of, or protector of, our constitutional liberties, anyway?
I must say, this is sizing up to be quite an interesting chapter in our history. The pressure put on these companies by angry or embarrassed government entities must be enormous.
Or nonexistent. Seeing as we've seen no report of governmental influence other than one company saying they unilaterally booted Wikileaks after a Senator made a public statement condemning Wikileaks, any supposition of governmental pressure is pure conjecture. One could also surmise that companies might find doing business with a website which is at the very least hostile toward the US government isn't part of their business plan and cut ties. Or maybe they're really patriotic. The point is, we don't know if the government has pressured American companies not to do business with Wikileaks. I suspect it wouldn't take much leaning on the part of the government to convince them to stop, at any rate. I know this doesn't fit the narrative here at/., what with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but in the real world businesses do what is in their own best interests.
For you cyberpunks out there, note that it is steam machinery.
At least until the Ford class carriers are built. Those will use electromagnetic catapults. AFAIK the British Queen Elizabeth class will also use electromagnetic.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
Barking up the wrong tree there, people in this nation are free to be Christian if they choose but our government is not. I for one don't support any of the sky wizards and don't believe it is the place of government to force me to take responsibility for those who have failed to take responsibility for themselves. If I want to give my money away it should be my choice where it goes, not some kleptocrat living thousands of miles away or some guy in funny clothes claiming he has messages from a god.
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Yes, in fact, I do believe most wealthy people worked for what they have.
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Why do you need a government to tell you to support the less fortunate/less motivated/less intelligent/etc.? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone's "share" is? It's not your money.
No, wrong again. The money to pay for this is coming from the savings derived from preventative care vs emergency care (it's not me saying this - the OMB has produced the report stating this - $622 billion over 10 years). When a person can go to a doctor and get an antibiotic when they get sick (cost ~$75.00) rather than wind up on a breathing machine in E/R (cost ~$50,000), you can understand how this is the case. It been stated time and time again (although you'll never hear this on Fox News), the healthcare reform is budget neutral.
It's even cheaper when I don't have to pay for either their antibiotics or their "breathing machine". Get your hand out of my pocket.
To the second point: no new math required. You just should have paid attention the first go around. Wealth is not the same thing as income. Income is the money that people receive from work, government benefits, or investments. Wealth, or net worth, refers to savings, real estate, retirement funds, stocks, bonds, and trust funds.
I realize this is/. and all, and pedantry is the new black, but where do you think wealth comes from, if not income?
I find it completely fair that those who have enough wealth to enjoy the luxuries and pleasures this country has to offer should pay a larger percentage of their income as compare to those who work 80 hours a week their entire life just to feed their families. However, you are free to feel differently.
Amazon does a fair bit of business in the United States, what with it being an American corporation and all. I'm surprised Wikileaks lasted a day before getting the boot. Kudos to Amazon for knowing where their bread is buttered.
First, I don't agree that providing care to the uninsured is taking ANYTHING from another person. It is not a zero-sum game. Just because a person with the flu can get treatment for their condition before they wind up in E/R with pneumonia does necessarily mean that Steve Forbe will pay any more for his green fees. In fact, it likely will result in all of us paying LESS for healthcare.
You obviously don't understand where the money is coming from to pay those doctors. I'll give you a hint, it isn't from the magic money tree (although many lawmakers seem to think one exists). It's from corporate and personal taxation. Also, if I'm already paying x for healthcare, and now I'm also paying some portion of my taxes y for previously uninsured people, the amount paid isn't less. x+y = It's more. Rates are going up all over the place by the way.
As to your second comment,
Who are you kidding? ANY change in monetary policy has the effect of redistributing wealth. Changing income tax rates based on ability to pay is not seizing anyone's wealth, only taxing the income of those with higher incomes at a higher rate than those of lower incomes.
Okay, so let me make sure I've got this straight: you're saying that enforcing higher tax rates on those who have more money isn't taking a greater share of those peoples' money in proportion to those who have less (and allegedly benefit from the government's confiscation of said funds). Must be that new math I never learned.
I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.
Where are people being polled on whether Assange should be charged with treason? Bradley Manning is the topic of those discussions, and most commentators I've heard say it's unlikely to see a treason charge, simply because treason doesn't describe what he did. Furthermore, Manning was a member of the US military and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally there is the National Security Act of 1947 which will definitely come into play. He's going to be lucky if he gets out of military prison before he turns 50. Non-disclosure agreements don't quite cover the gravity of classified secrets.
She never does. And neither do those Tea Party idiots for that matter. But then again, what can you expect? I mean they did name themselves after an event that had nothing to do with taxation.
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
Taking from one person to give to another person through taxation is pretty much textbook wealth redistribution, whether you call it "health care" or "welfare".
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
It's not wealth redistribution when the ones with the wealth aren't seeing their wealth redistributed.
How, exactly, does undermining the legitimate, peaceful diplomacy of the U.S. and other western powers make the world a better place?
If your worldview is one that has America and its allies as the root(s) of all evil, crippling their evil peaceful diplomatic initiatives is crucial. Of course, if that means starting a shooting war in Korea that could kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a matter of hours, so be it. You have to break a few eggs to make that beautiful, Utopian omelet.
I'm not sure where WikiLeaks is intent on taking us. Hopefully someone on the inside will leak that information to us.
Your whole argument is based on a false choice between leftist/statist Democrats and Republicans who are mathematically challenged evangelicals. No such clear-cut dichotomy exists. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who would champion individual rights over those of the government, and who wouldn't be considered leftist even here in the USA. There are plenty of Republican candidates who aren't evangelicals (or even religious), and who are not only desirous of tax cuts but also the necessary spending cuts as well to balance the budget.
Also, mentioning that our left wing are weak because they don't go out burning stuff or believe in communism is something all Americans should be proud of. I don't see that as weakness, by the way. I see that as intellectual maturity.
The United States is going through a rough patch economically, but it will recover. Politically, it is going through one of its many reformative phases. A positive aspect of the Tea Party movement is that the notion that the people sent to Washington are sent there by the people to represent them and not special interest lobbying groups is starting to take firm hold on the American right. They don't hold sway inside the Republican party yet, but they're loud enough to make any reelection campaign a hard fight. Sarah Palin (or her "clone" you alluded to, Christine O'Donnell) is hardly the center of that movement. She's given lots of airtime because she says silly things and is photogenic. If you want to look at its roots and its ideological base, that would be Ron Paul and his supporters.
We're not in deep peril. Not by a long shot. Hyperbolic language used to sell newspapers and get website hits does not equal the reality on the ground. The finances need to be put in order, for sure. It'll happen.
In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.
That's what **THEY** want you to believe.
I for one will only vote after I have covered myself in aluminum foil from head to toe. It's the only way to stop the evil Fox News/MSNBC mind control rays.
I don't mean to turn this into a slam against America, but I guess what I'm saying is, and so be it. It's a shame that countries around the world are spending billions on engineering such projects while America is spending trillions on war.
Opinions on whether or not we should be over there aside, I don't see why we can't do both. It's not like all the money is going toward war. It's also a pretty good bet that the war isn't going to last forever. What needs to happen is someone in Washington needs to grow a spine and raise taxes to pay for what we need to pay for, and start trimming the fat going forward. The military is a great place to start, and yes the first thing that should go is the war. Then we can pull all of our troops out of Europe and let the Europeans worry about their own defenses to a much greater degree. I doubt NATO membership requires that America keep troops in Germany and Britain. We should also look at all federal entitlement programs for places to cut (Medicare, for example). The harsh reality no one wants to face is that we can't afford these gigantic spending programs without gigantic tax increases. The American public have made it very clear they don't want tax increases. Perhaps if they were threatened with losing Medicare they'd willingly pony up more? It usually takes a disaster of biblical proportions to get us as a nation to do the right thing.
We need to fix up our aging infrastructure for sure, starting with all the bridges. And then to show those dirty Swiss a thing or two we should dig a tunnel to Switzerland.
Slashdot Mirror
It is surprising, watching the entire WikiLeaks controversy, how quickly American corporations discard the concepts and ideals of the American constitution.
Which concepts and ideals in the American constitution are being discarded by corporations? Since when do we expect corporations to be the source of, or protector of, our constitutional liberties, anyway?
I must say, this is sizing up to be quite an interesting chapter in our history. The pressure put on these companies by angry or embarrassed government entities must be enormous.
Or nonexistent. Seeing as we've seen no report of governmental influence other than one company saying they unilaterally booted Wikileaks after a Senator made a public statement condemning Wikileaks, any supposition of governmental pressure is pure conjecture. One could also surmise that companies might find doing business with a website which is at the very least hostile toward the US government isn't part of their business plan and cut ties. Or maybe they're really patriotic. The point is, we don't know if the government has pressured American companies not to do business with Wikileaks. I suspect it wouldn't take much leaning on the part of the government to convince them to stop, at any rate. I know this doesn't fit the narrative here at /., what with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but in the real world businesses do what is in their own best interests.
Yea! Aren't you PROUD to be an American?
Yes
For you cyberpunks out there, note that it is steam machinery.
At least until the Ford class carriers are built. Those will use electromagnetic catapults. AFAIK the British Queen Elizabeth class will also use electromagnetic.
Very good point. Let those without die. Wait... what was that about this being a Christian nation???
Barking up the wrong tree there, people in this nation are free to be Christian if they choose but our government is not. I for one don't support any of the sky wizards and don't believe it is the place of government to force me to take responsibility for those who have failed to take responsibility for themselves. If I want to give my money away it should be my choice where it goes, not some kleptocrat living thousands of miles away or some guy in funny clothes claiming he has messages from a god.
Ah.. lets see... daddy's money, patent trolling, mortgage fraud, businesses in the Cayman Islands, etc. Do you actually believe most wealthy people in this country actually worked for their money??? GMAFB.
Yes, in fact, I do believe most wealthy people worked for what they have.
At least I can sleep at night knowing I paid my share (not an insignificant amount mind you) and I don't begrudge those less fortunate than me the basic necessities of life.
Why do you need a government to tell you to support the less fortunate/less motivated/less intelligent/etc.? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone's "share" is? It's not your money.
No, wrong again. The money to pay for this is coming from the savings derived from preventative care vs emergency care (it's not me saying this - the OMB has produced the report stating this - $622 billion over 10 years). When a person can go to a doctor and get an antibiotic when they get sick (cost ~$75.00) rather than wind up on a breathing machine in E/R (cost ~$50,000), you can understand how this is the case. It been stated time and time again (although you'll never hear this on Fox News), the healthcare reform is budget neutral.
It's even cheaper when I don't have to pay for either their antibiotics or their "breathing machine". Get your hand out of my pocket.
To the second point: no new math required. You just should have paid attention the first go around. Wealth is not the same thing as income. Income is the money that people receive from work, government benefits, or investments. Wealth, or net worth, refers to savings, real estate, retirement funds, stocks, bonds, and trust funds.
I realize this is /. and all, and pedantry is the new black, but where do you think wealth comes from, if not income?
I find it completely fair that those who have enough wealth to enjoy the luxuries and pleasures this country has to offer should pay a larger percentage of their income as compare to those who work 80 hours a week their entire life just to feed their families. However, you are free to feel differently.
Good for you, enjoy the afterglow on tax day.
I sense a hoax.
Amazon does a fair bit of business in the United States, what with it being an American corporation and all. I'm surprised Wikileaks lasted a day before getting the boot. Kudos to Amazon for knowing where their bread is buttered.
First, I don't agree that providing care to the uninsured is taking ANYTHING from another person. It is not a zero-sum game. Just because a person with the flu can get treatment for their condition before they wind up in E/R with pneumonia does necessarily mean that Steve Forbe will pay any more for his green fees. In fact, it likely will result in all of us paying LESS for healthcare.
You obviously don't understand where the money is coming from to pay those doctors. I'll give you a hint, it isn't from the magic money tree (although many lawmakers seem to think one exists). It's from corporate and personal taxation. Also, if I'm already paying x for healthcare, and now I'm also paying some portion of my taxes y for previously uninsured people, the amount paid isn't less. x+y = It's more. Rates are going up all over the place by the way.
As to your second comment, Who are you kidding? ANY change in monetary policy has the effect of redistributing wealth. Changing income tax rates based on ability to pay is not seizing anyone's wealth, only taxing the income of those with higher incomes at a higher rate than those of lower incomes.
Okay, so let me make sure I've got this straight: you're saying that enforcing higher tax rates on those who have more money isn't taking a greater share of those peoples' money in proportion to those who have less (and allegedly benefit from the government's confiscation of said funds). Must be that new math I never learned.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
You answered your question before you asked it.
I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.
Where are people being polled on whether Assange should be charged with treason? Bradley Manning is the topic of those discussions, and most commentators I've heard say it's unlikely to see a treason charge, simply because treason doesn't describe what he did. Furthermore, Manning was a member of the US military and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally there is the National Security Act of 1947 which will definitely come into play. He's going to be lucky if he gets out of military prison before he turns 50. Non-disclosure agreements don't quite cover the gravity of classified secrets.
She never does. And neither do those Tea Party idiots for that matter. But then again, what can you expect? I mean they did name themselves after an event that had nothing to do with taxation.
comment on things they don't understand.
Hoisted by your own petard
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
Taking from one person to give to another person through taxation is pretty much textbook wealth redistribution, whether you call it "health care" or "welfare".
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
It's not wealth redistribution when the ones with the wealth aren't seeing their wealth redistributed.
How, exactly, does undermining the legitimate, peaceful diplomacy of the U.S. and other western powers make the world a better place?
If your worldview is one that has America and its allies as the root(s) of all evil, crippling their evil peaceful diplomatic initiatives is crucial. Of course, if that means starting a shooting war in Korea that could kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a matter of hours, so be it. You have to break a few eggs to make that beautiful, Utopian omelet.
I'm not sure where WikiLeaks is intent on taking us. Hopefully someone on the inside will leak that information to us.
The Pentagon Papers were revealed by the New York Times during the Nixon Administration, not Johnson.
We used gorillas in the Revolution? Awesome! I bet those Redcoats were just terrified of being attacked by giant apes.
No, I'm still seeing the same stupid comments
Your whole argument is based on a false choice between leftist/statist Democrats and Republicans who are mathematically challenged evangelicals. No such clear-cut dichotomy exists. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who would champion individual rights over those of the government, and who wouldn't be considered leftist even here in the USA. There are plenty of Republican candidates who aren't evangelicals (or even religious), and who are not only desirous of tax cuts but also the necessary spending cuts as well to balance the budget.
Also, mentioning that our left wing are weak because they don't go out burning stuff or believe in communism is something all Americans should be proud of. I don't see that as weakness, by the way. I see that as intellectual maturity.
The United States is going through a rough patch economically, but it will recover. Politically, it is going through one of its many reformative phases. A positive aspect of the Tea Party movement is that the notion that the people sent to Washington are sent there by the people to represent them and not special interest lobbying groups is starting to take firm hold on the American right. They don't hold sway inside the Republican party yet, but they're loud enough to make any reelection campaign a hard fight. Sarah Palin (or her "clone" you alluded to, Christine O'Donnell) is hardly the center of that movement. She's given lots of airtime because she says silly things and is photogenic. If you want to look at its roots and its ideological base, that would be Ron Paul and his supporters.
We're not in deep peril. Not by a long shot. Hyperbolic language used to sell newspapers and get website hits does not equal the reality on the ground. The finances need to be put in order, for sure. It'll happen.
I really don't understand Americans
No kidding, you really don't, as you demonstrated quite well with the rest of your rant.
In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.
That's what **THEY** want you to believe. I for one will only vote after I have covered myself in aluminum foil from head to toe. It's the only way to stop the evil Fox News/MSNBC mind control rays.
I don't mean to turn this into a slam against America, but I guess what I'm saying is, and so be it. It's a shame that countries around the world are spending billions on engineering such projects while America is spending trillions on war.
Opinions on whether or not we should be over there aside, I don't see why we can't do both. It's not like all the money is going toward war. It's also a pretty good bet that the war isn't going to last forever. What needs to happen is someone in Washington needs to grow a spine and raise taxes to pay for what we need to pay for, and start trimming the fat going forward. The military is a great place to start, and yes the first thing that should go is the war. Then we can pull all of our troops out of Europe and let the Europeans worry about their own defenses to a much greater degree. I doubt NATO membership requires that America keep troops in Germany and Britain. We should also look at all federal entitlement programs for places to cut (Medicare, for example). The harsh reality no one wants to face is that we can't afford these gigantic spending programs without gigantic tax increases. The American public have made it very clear they don't want tax increases. Perhaps if they were threatened with losing Medicare they'd willingly pony up more? It usually takes a disaster of biblical proportions to get us as a nation to do the right thing.
We need to fix up our aging infrastructure for sure, starting with all the bridges. And then to show those dirty Swiss a thing or two we should dig a tunnel to Switzerland.
You're correct. You do need a reboot before the changes will take effect.
555-2368
that americans were big on keeping an eye on gov, not the other way around. way to make the tinfoil hat crowd look sane
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?
Possibly so. Thank goodness you're here to explain it to us.
Making blanket statements about other nationalities, however, is a concept we're very familiar with.