I know this doesn't fit the agenda of the left, parroting the mantra that "white people are racist" in the way they want. But the fact is, the biggest racists I know are those white liberals running around making excuses as to why black people need help, simply because of their skin color.
The greatest example is, watching a white liberal explain how black people need to wear their pants around their knees, as if it were some racial trait that cannot be overcome.
Beyond Google, the web looks more and more like a feudal system, where the geography of the web has been partitioned off by the Frightful Five. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are our lord and protectors, exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors.
Segmentation is natural in a oligarchy. I would suggest to you that Microsoft, was one the sole leader in the tech world, and lost its dominance by thinking it was "it". The others will eventually fail. We may be too short sighted to notice it happening.
The point being, the "next" big thing is going to hit, and these guys are all going to miss it. Probably, because the next big thing won't be anything we expect, it will happen organically. This is why I don't see 3D stuff as being successful. It might be, when there is a "killer app" that requires it to function. Since 3D porn, movies and games haven't really taken off yet, it is either too premature, or not required for functionality.
I haven't a clue what the next big thing is, because it likely hasn't reached maturity, and hasn't found the "killer" status that will cause it to take off. If I had a suspicion, I would think augmented reality would be the "next big thing", but it is still years away from being "killer".
Well, you can even say that commercial speech limits truthful statements. Just see Walnuts vs FDA, where the FDA said that stating scientifically proven statements aren't allowed, because only "drugs" can claim to treat diseases. Nutrition has no part in keeping people healthy.
Let me tell you my perspective on "race" and bigotry. IT starts and ends when (usually white) people make excuses as to why black people are different from white people, by calling anyone "racist" who expects people to be... the same.
Wearing pants around their knees is a "racial trait".
Sucking at school is a "racial trait"
Being poor is a "racial trait"
And the worst... voting democratic is a "racial trait"
You can see it in all sorts of political opinions and assumptions, that black people can't _______ because they are... black. You can see this summarized in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The most racist white people I know, are all liberal democrats who think so poorly of black people. The problem is, they think they aren't racist, and republicans are all racist, because they think they are "helping" black people with their condescending attitudes.
A democratic republic is both a republic and a democracy. A republic is: a sovereign state. whose ultimate power rests in its citizens entitled to vote. who (directly or indirectly) elect representatives to wield that power.
We are democratic republic. Representation is, by definition, part of the "republic" part. We elect our representatives directly, democratically. Hence, democratic republic.
Well, she is relative to the discussion, because as far as "hiding" things goes, she was a master, and almost became president. And the outrage was nonexistent during the campaign, even though it was well known. This kind of dismissal is what I expect from Liberals caught in their typical hypocritical double standard.
By your definition of "currency", stocks would be considered currency. So would a lot of other instruments, trading cards, collectibles, durable goods.
And I actually qualified why I answered the way I did. Ubiquity.
Corporations are "people*" in as much as the law defines them as such. This is the problem Liberals have with laws, they don't like. Don't like the law, change it. We do live in a democratic republic, and have the means to change the law.
Citiizens United was a valid ruling because the law is clear on this subject. Just because you don't like the corporate "personhood" definition, written in the law, doesn't mean it is not valid.
*The law actually doesn't call them "person" they call it "legal entity", with certain rights granted as a "legal entity". Those rights mirror citizens or people in general. Knowing WHY Citizen's United exists as a court decision is helpful in changing the laws that define corporate rights.
They also have no responsibility to fight anyone else's battles.
Sure they do. In the same way that government can force a bakery to sell cakes to people the bakery doesn't want to. They are both 1st Amendment causes.
Corporations are government sponsored entities. They are granted, by government, their status and as such are tied to government. I would suggest that they are actually a public/private partnership because of that. In the same way, that an unpaid high school football coach is "government" and can't give a prayer before a game because of "establishment clause" is. In fact, I would suggest to you, that the ties are even closer in the case of Corporations.
Further, if government can force a privately held bakery to participate in a quasi religious ceremony, then by all means, the government can force corporations to adhere to OTHER First Amendment Rights. After all, we have established that personal ethos are overruled when they serve the public.
Citizen's United isn't the problem. Citizen's united is the same thing as Unions and Pacs contributing to elections. They are all incorporated. So, unless you're suggesting that only private citizens can have free political speech, then you're just upset that the balance was shifted from one group to another.
My suggestion is this. Any incorporated group, (PAC, Charity, Corporations, Unions etc) can spend whatever they want on political speech, but they cannot donate to any other group, or to candidate or cause directly. That way, if the NRA wants to promote a Senate candidate, they can buy their own time, and pay for their own promotional bits. Same for unions. That way, we can see exactly who is getting what from who.
I think we just want to remove the shell game that hides all the money flowing into campaigns.
Trade Federation: "is it legal" Palpatine: "I will make it legal"
Government is above the law, because it makes the law. We don't elect people to write laws and execute them, we elect people to monitor the legislative and executive actions of the shadow state.
Far too many people are enjoying the fruits of this illicit governance, and therefore don't care how bad our liberties are being raped.
A bar owner can double the price of their beer and make double the money--if they're currently charging a penny for a pint.
The problem with taxes, is that every time we try to lower them, liberals go ape shit crazy, as if you're tossing Grandma off a cliff, killing kittens and eating babies. Democrats only know one thing, "Increase taxes!!"
See California, which is raising taxes once again, to pay for things previous taxes were raised for, but redirected by Democrats into their pet projects and social experiment programs. In this case, it is "Gas" taxes to pay for "Roads" that previous taxes were supposed to pay for. Meanwhile, they will be surprised when tax revenue from Gasoline drops as more people figure out that a Tesla is less expensive now and actually pays for itself, depriving the state of much needed Gas Taxes.
Tax what you want to rid, and it goes away. Why are we paying taxes on income again?
Bush/Obama tax cuts were fully repealed, it would restore $4T in tax revenues for a decade that could fix the hole in the budget.
I've never met a Democrat that didn't like taxes, increasing taxes, or new and increasing taxes, Nope, not one. Because in the end, they continue to vote Democrat, and the democrats keep taxing and spending like a drunk pirate. Pirate, because sailors actually stop spending when they run out of money.
All one needs to do, is look at California, which keeps raising taxes on REGULAR people.
Slashdot Mirror
Crysis
The real racist say "Blacks can't use cell phones" because ... they're black and don't know how. Mostly white liberals on college campuses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I know this doesn't fit the agenda of the left, parroting the mantra that "white people are racist" in the way they want. But the fact is, the biggest racists I know are those white liberals running around making excuses as to why black people need help, simply because of their skin color.
The greatest example is, watching a white liberal explain how black people need to wear their pants around their knees, as if it were some racial trait that cannot be overcome.
Beyond Google, the web looks more and more like a feudal system, where the geography of the web has been partitioned off by the Frightful Five. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are our lord and protectors, exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors.
Segmentation is natural in a oligarchy. I would suggest to you that Microsoft, was one the sole leader in the tech world, and lost its dominance by thinking it was "it". The others will eventually fail. We may be too short sighted to notice it happening.
The point being, the "next" big thing is going to hit, and these guys are all going to miss it. Probably, because the next big thing won't be anything we expect, it will happen organically. This is why I don't see 3D stuff as being successful. It might be, when there is a "killer app" that requires it to function. Since 3D porn, movies and games haven't really taken off yet, it is either too premature, or not required for functionality.
I haven't a clue what the next big thing is, because it likely hasn't reached maturity, and hasn't found the "killer" status that will cause it to take off. If I had a suspicion, I would think augmented reality would be the "next big thing", but it is still years away from being "killer".
Domestic Help is there, but it is too expensive, so we must import cheap third world labor in order to "compete".
This is the real reason they cry for imported labor.
What's the term for the fascist equivalent of virtue signalling?
Politically Correct
Well, you can even say that commercial speech limits truthful statements. Just see Walnuts vs FDA, where the FDA said that stating scientifically proven statements aren't allowed, because only "drugs" can claim to treat diseases. Nutrition has no part in keeping people healthy.
Obviously, the solution is more laws!
Let me tell you my perspective on "race" and bigotry. IT starts and ends when (usually white) people make excuses as to why black people are different from white people, by calling anyone "racist" who expects people to be ... the same.
Wearing pants around their knees is a "racial trait".
Sucking at school is a "racial trait"
Being poor is a "racial trait"
And the worst ... voting democratic is a "racial trait"
You can see it in all sorts of political opinions and assumptions, that black people can't _______ because they are ... black. You can see this summarized in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The most racist white people I know, are all liberal democrats who think so poorly of black people. The problem is, they think they aren't racist, and republicans are all racist, because they think they are "helping" black people with their condescending attitudes.
A democratic republic is both a republic and a democracy. A republic is: a sovereign state. whose ultimate power rests in its citizens entitled to vote. who (directly or indirectly) elect representatives to wield that power.
We are democratic republic. Representation is, by definition, part of the "republic" part. We elect our representatives directly, democratically. Hence, democratic republic.
Well, she is relative to the discussion, because as far as "hiding" things goes, she was a master, and almost became president. And the outrage was nonexistent during the campaign, even though it was well known. This kind of dismissal is what I expect from Liberals caught in their typical hypocritical double standard.
Its only bad when the other guy does it!
Did Hillary hide or not hide emails, server etc from the public?
The selective moral outrage by the Democrats and left is astounding.
By your definition of "currency", stocks would be considered currency. So would a lot of other instruments, trading cards, collectibles, durable goods.
And I actually qualified why I answered the way I did. Ubiquity.
Corporations are "people*" in as much as the law defines them as such. This is the problem Liberals have with laws, they don't like. Don't like the law, change it. We do live in a democratic republic, and have the means to change the law.
Citiizens United was a valid ruling because the law is clear on this subject. Just because you don't like the corporate "personhood" definition, written in the law, doesn't mean it is not valid.
*The law actually doesn't call them "person" they call it "legal entity", with certain rights granted as a "legal entity". Those rights mirror citizens or people in general. Knowing WHY Citizen's United exists as a court decision is helpful in changing the laws that define corporate rights.
They also have no responsibility to fight anyone else's battles.
Sure they do. In the same way that government can force a bakery to sell cakes to people the bakery doesn't want to. They are both 1st Amendment causes.
Corporations are government sponsored entities. They are granted, by government, their status and as such are tied to government. I would suggest that they are actually a public/private partnership because of that. In the same way, that an unpaid high school football coach is "government" and can't give a prayer before a game because of "establishment clause" is. In fact, I would suggest to you, that the ties are even closer in the case of Corporations.
Further, if government can force a privately held bakery to participate in a quasi religious ceremony, then by all means, the government can force corporations to adhere to OTHER First Amendment Rights. After all, we have established that personal ethos are overruled when they serve the public.
Welcome to the flip side of the coin.
Technically, it isn't a currency, anymore than Disney bucks are a currency. One day, it might become a currency. Think Ubiquity.
You mean, like Hillary's email? Like that?
Actually, it was on purpose. The fact that you can't figure it out kinda proves my point. ;)
Technically, the US is a Democratic Republic. Tyranny of the majority (Democracy) is still tyranny.
Citizen's United isn't the problem. Citizen's united is the same thing as Unions and Pacs contributing to elections. They are all incorporated. So, unless you're suggesting that only private citizens can have free political speech, then you're just upset that the balance was shifted from one group to another.
My suggestion is this. Any incorporated group, (PAC, Charity, Corporations, Unions etc) can spend whatever they want on political speech, but they cannot donate to any other group, or to candidate or cause directly. That way, if the NRA wants to promote a Senate candidate, they can buy their own time, and pay for their own promotional bits. Same for unions. That way, we can see exactly who is getting what from who.
I think we just want to remove the shell game that hides all the money flowing into campaigns.
Trade Federation: "is it legal"
Palpatine: "I will make it legal"
Government is above the law, because it makes the law. We don't elect people to write laws and execute them, we elect people to monitor the legislative and executive actions of the shadow state.
Far too many people are enjoying the fruits of this illicit governance, and therefore don't care how bad our liberties are being raped.
The whole proposal is built on poor estimates and pipe dreams with little or no supporting evidence.
Like ObamaCare?
A bar owner can double the price of their beer and make double the money--if they're currently charging a penny for a pint.
The problem with taxes, is that every time we try to lower them, liberals go ape shit crazy, as if you're tossing Grandma off a cliff, killing kittens and eating babies. Democrats only know one thing, "Increase taxes!!"
See California, which is raising taxes once again, to pay for things previous taxes were raised for, but redirected by Democrats into their pet projects and social experiment programs. In this case, it is "Gas" taxes to pay for "Roads" that previous taxes were supposed to pay for. Meanwhile, they will be surprised when tax revenue from Gasoline drops as more people figure out that a Tesla is less expensive now and actually pays for itself, depriving the state of much needed Gas Taxes.
Tax what you want to rid, and it goes away. Why are we paying taxes on income again?
Bush/Obama tax cuts were fully repealed, it would restore $4T in tax revenues for a decade that could fix the hole in the budget.
I've never met a Democrat that didn't like taxes, increasing taxes, or new and increasing taxes, Nope, not one. Because in the end, they continue to vote Democrat, and the democrats keep taxing and spending like a drunk pirate. Pirate, because sailors actually stop spending when they run out of money.
All one needs to do, is look at California, which keeps raising taxes on REGULAR people.
Taxes are regressive. All of them.
With a mallet made of depleted uranium.
Secured by Hillary Clinton and massive donations to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, and speaking fees to the former Rapist in Cheat Bill.