No, you dimwit, it does not. Had it been something silly and non-threatening, the guy wouldn't have had a problem finding a job to begin with. There is no law barring employment for felons — on the contrary, the state goes out of its way to encourage employers to hire them, to reduce recidivism.
If the individual employers have all turned him down and his only hope is to have his record expunged, then it must have been something genuinely scary.
Are our pre-existing biases of felons
They probably are. To be born and raised in the USA — the country, to which millions of people dream of migrating (legally and otherwise) — and waste your youthful years on crime? Something must be seriously wrong with you and I don't blame people, who, given a choice (this is a land of the free, remember?) refuse to associate with you...
Well that and the dude is probably asking for legit advice.
Yes, his questions are legitimate. And so are the answers...
It would be a mistake to assume, the problem is unique to our period in history. USSR was conducting its covert propaganda campaigns decades before, and they weren't the first to invent such methods either.
For example, compare the world's reaction to American invasion of Korea — to prevent Communists from taking over the country — with the same sort of thing in Vietnam a few years later... The motivation was the same, the methods were the same, the goals were the same — what little differences existed, they were immaterial.
And yet, the Vietnam war was denounced by so many, it remains a "black" page of American history, wheres Korean war is, generally, acceptable... Characters of "M.A.S.H." maybe skeptical of the events around them, but nobody claims, the US was evil to do, what it did — in stark contrast to anything having to do with Vietnam. What gives? By the time of Vietnam war, USSR had enough influence to begin working-up the outrage...
The education system?
It is no secret, that to change public opinion on a matter, it is best to start in schools (if you have time). Leftists have taken to that in spades — having a government job naturally appeals to Illiberals... They certainly are entrenched in the education system now, but that's a consequence of Russia's help for (and guidance of) anti-Americans world-wide — not the reason.
Today the same contrasts — and the double-standards — continue. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, the world's streets exploded in outrage. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the reaction on the street — both in the US and in Europe — is notable by its absence. Are some invasions better than others? Or is it simply that some invaders have a world-wide network of influence over the loudest mouths most likely to riot, while others do not?
Maybe the population of useful idiots hasn't changed, it's just that now they have a voice.
They always had a voice. Internet is just another medium for it...
First, because otherwise he wouldn't have had such problems with hiring managers. We've all seen these questionnaires:
Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Yes
If yes, please, explain. I was caught with a marijuana joint
If that's all it was, it would not have been a problem in most companies — there are no laws banning from felons from working on most things. But in a free country, such as ours, you can't force people to hire and/or work with someone they are afraid of either...
And second, if it were only drug-possession, he would've mentioned it in his question — no, it was something more reprehensible.
Most felons are guilty of one crime in particular. Drug possession.
No, that's not quite true. Though "drug abuse violations" are, indeed, at the top of the list of felonies in the US, these include things far more sinister, than mere possession...
The thing is, in the good ol' US of A, where less than 10 years ago you could be a felon for owning 6 dildos
Somehow I doubt, the asker was convicted only of violating something as stupid as possession of dildos or innocent as that of marijuana — he would've said so (if any employer even paid attention to it in the first place).
No, he was, by all appearances, genuinely guilty of at least one violent crime — plus some misdemeanors. I'm not saying, he "deserves" never to work in IT at all, but I don't blame the IT-folks — most of whom have not hit anybody in anger since middle school — for not wanting to work (be under the same roof!) with such a guy.
Why would you choose to drag out your anti-Americanism over this, is beyond me...
I just hope you know that the USA are tenfold more guilty of that type of foreign affairs meddling.
Citations needed. With WikiLeaks and Snoweden out there, you should have no problem coming up with 10 counter-examples for each example listed in Mitrochin Archive. Start with assassins...
But I was not even that outraged with USSR/Russia themselves — my anger is with the domestic fools ("useful idiots" as the USSR/Russia affectionately refer to them) — who do their utmost to sabotage their own countries, not realizing, the only beneficiaries of their efforts are foreign enemies.
Everybody wants to influence others to see his point of view — that's natural. But your attempts to equate US with USSR (and today's Russia) fail the second your audience recalls, that our ideology is demonstrably superior to theirs. We may not be the "best" possible, but we are much better. It is therefor Ok to promote our ideology, while anybody promoting Communism — if only by wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt in public — belongs on a lamp-post...
First of all, labor, however heavy, does not automatically mean value. A man can spend 4 hours digging a hole, and 4 more hours filling it up. At the end of the 8 hours he is very tired, his hands are callused, but his hard labors produced no value whatsoever.
On the other hand, an old cell-phone charger may be of no use to me, but to a buyer — who still uses that peculiar cell-phone — it may be very valuable. My sale of the charger to him has just created value...
Big difference.
Distinction — maybe. But distinction without difference. Because any argument, with which you can come up to justify government intervention on behalf of a seller of labor, can also be applied to sellers of iPhones and orange juice...
Arrays of sensors at each site will monitor climate change and human impacts for 30 years, building an unprecedented continental-scale data set.
And then, 30 years later, will we finally put the "global warming" to rest?
unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol
When you get millions of dollars in funding to look for a black cat in a dark room without a cat, you may as well spend it on partying...
I am an ecologist actively campaigning against the idiocy of fracking (especially in a karst landscape like ours). I can categorically state that no-one is financing us, let alone the Russians.
Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...
Another purpose of a foreign intelligence service is to spread the influence and ideology of its regime, or damage the claims and image of another regime.
Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...
The similarity of goals make for strange bed-fellows. Russia and Saudi Arabia may have little else in common, but they are both major exporters of fossil fuels. Not having the same sort of spy-network as Russia, Saudis finance propaganda movies. Russia would do that too, of course — and take care of translating such movies for audiences in Russia and its Russian-speaking neighbors.
And when propaganda-campaigns fail to stop other countries from developing their own energy-sources, Russia will invade...
If you have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and no health insurance, one may be coerced into accepting crappy pay and crappy conditions rather than it being truly voluntary.
Demagoguery. You could say the same thing about a person selling anything — his house, car, bicycle, anything — not just labor.
Do you want the government to force any would-be buyer to pay a "fair" price for the house, car, or family jewels, etc.? No? What if the seller has no health insurance? How is selling one's labor different?
Also since you feel that negotiating pay is reasonable system
It is the only system. Whatever is being sold, buyer wants to pay less, seller wants to get more — always. They negotiate and either come to some agreement, or walk away. Anything else — such as the government helping one of them against the other — is tyranny and a road to hell....
It is not your employer's fault, that you have "mouths to feed" — they are offering you a certain salary, and you are free to take it or ask for more. The second you think of asking the government to compel the hitherto voluntary party into doing something they don't want to do, you become evil.
If I feel that I'm in a weaker position shouldn't I be allowed to strengthen it? And wouldn't that include bargaining collectively rather than as an individual?
Yes, it is quite possible, that you may be able to convince the would-be buyer, that he can't find a better deal — by agreeing with other would-be sellers to hold a certain price. This still does not change the basic economic principle I put forth — that nothing has an inherent value, and everything is worth exactly as much, as a buyer is willing to pay.
This is why I insist, unions — or any other individual methods of persuasion (legal and otherwise) — are off-topic here.
Did you negotiate to have a safe work environment?
I don't have a safe work environment — a variety of assholes have been protesting some thug being killed by a policeman, whom he attacked, all week. Getting in and out of the office was rather unpleasant, but I don't blame my employer for that.
How about handicap accessibility should you ever end up, even temporarily, in a wheelchair?
A valuable employee, such as myself, will be provided with whatever is reasonably needed for him to do his job — whether or not some law requires it or not.
History is littered with examples of company towns
This really has nothing to do with minimum pay. Let's stay on topic.
But were the Labor Department instead to narrow these exemptions, millions more Americans would receive the overtime pay they deserve.
Dear government! My nasty employer would not pay me, what I deserve. Please, pass a law to make him pay me more.
No, you don't "deserve" anything other than what you negotiate. If you don't like your pay, look for another job — things, including your labor, do not have inherent value. Everything is worth exactly as much, as someone is willing to pay for it.
If that's, how you choose to read the Second Amendment, then the First must only — in your reading — protect speech of those, who petition the government. And only if the petition is for redress of grievances.
And yet, numerous court-decisions (including those immortalized in the "People vs. Larry Flynt") ruled, that the First Amendment protects even pornography...
The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.
And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat? He said:
"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat"
It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [...]
You were referring to post-9/11 legislation (see title of this subthread). The Clinton-signed Act of 2000 was the closest to 9/11 (before or after). While it was possible, you've made a mistake of one year, I could not imagine, you'd be associating a law of 1984 with anything "post-9/11".
All the articles I've read call that act the turning point in Civil Forfeiture.
Then you've been reading crap. The civil forfeitures are just another manifestation of the major flaw of our — and British — law. While there are various commendable protections for your person (habeas corpus/presumption of innocence, right to bail, 4th and 5th Amendments, et ctera), there is nothing explicitly protecting your property. It can be — indeed, has been — seized by the Executive on a whim. And, of course, Democrats (such as the already-mentioned FDR) are guiltier of it than Republicans.
The income tax may be considered another manifestation of the same flaw...
I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and think I implied Republicans have trampled the second amendment.
He-he... I doubt, we'll get a poll, but here is what it looks like:
me: Second Amendment gives us the right to weapons.
you replying to me: Republicans are assholes
Why would you bring up Republicans at all — in a follow-up to a tiny post about the Second Amendment — if not to blame them for the blatant Second Amendment violations?
Republicans have (throughout my lifetime) been the advocates of National Security at all costs, and Crime Control at all costs.
They may have been misguided at that, but they weren't evil. Whereas anybody openly advocating for Hamas or Communists are advocating for evil...
You only seem to want to argue in favor of your tribe
Republicans are not my tribe. But a Libertarian in today's USA would be crazy to align with the Democrats. Because "it is the economy, stupid". Even if some uber-Conservative manages to gain power and outlaw abortions, gasp, I'll still have enough money to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if Obamas are allowed to run the country for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a 24x7 free abortion clinic next door will be of very little consolation...
but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.
The untruths consisted of:
Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 — the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate — 98 to 1.
Accusing Republicans of introducing the civil forfeiture laws — a mistake you've already acknowledged since.
Implying, Republicans are the reason, our Second Amendment right is trampled — and, at best, is treated as a mere privilege at best. You said nothing on this explicitly, but your post was a reply to mine, where I was talking about the Second Amendment and nothing else.
No, you didn't explicitly say "Democrats are innocent", but a lie by omission is still a lie.
If you don't agree with everything the ACLU
The one time I sent ACLU money, they sent me a membership card (I still have it). Two weeks later a solicitation to subscribe to "The Nation" (a disgusting Communist rag) arrived at the same address (I tag both my electronic and regular mail addresses with strings identifying the correspondents). The card had a picture showing American President in chains on it — anybody publishing such a picture today would've been denounced as "racist" and investigated by the Secret Service.
That ACLU would choose to ally itself with Illiberals in general and Communists in particular is why I'm now deeply suspicious of anything else they do. The staunchest of American Conservatives treat gays and the Freedom of Speech better, than Hamas or USSR, which are subject of much sympathy and even praise of "The Nation"...
To a first approximation, the modern Democratic party is almost exactly like the modern Republican party.
Nope. Though neither are, of course, Libertarian, the Democrats are much worse. What a Republican like Bush would do reluctantly and as an exception — be it the already mentioned civil forfeitures or drone killings — a Democrat would do willingly and make it a rule.
Lastly, Republicans may not agree with Libertarians on everything, but only Democrats openly sneer at us. Right here on/..
This was just another piece of police state bullshit rammed through by Republicans after 9/11
I seem to remember a vastly bipartisan support for these laws after 9/11... I don't think, you can plausibly single RethugliKKKans out.
Worse, Democrats had 4 years of majority in both Chambers of Congress — two of those years with a fellow Democrat in the White House. If they have not abolished these laws during the times, they are just as a guilty.
Back to my original point of the Second Amendment right — rather than state surveillance or, indeed, forfeitures — are you seriously going to argue, it is the Democrats, who champion our right to keep and bear arms? Really? Go ahead, make my day...
and civil forfeiture laws
So, the civil forfeiture is RethugliKKKans' fault too? Wow... Though reformed in 2000 (ans signed by that famous Republican William Clinton a year before 9/11), the outrage has been been with us since, at least, The Prohibition! And how neat of you to neglect to mention the IRS' newly-developed habit of seizing not just suspect cash found in a car-trunk, but bank-accounts. The New York Times article describes the practice — which greatly expanded under Obama: from 114 such confiscations in 2005 to 639 in 2012.
Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...
And if your country has oil, keep quiet about it or the US will come free the shit out of you.
The US is the world's biggest oil producer nowadays. Getting Iraq's oil back then — which anti-Americans like yourself keep alluding to — would've been far simpler by simply lifting the embargo, not go to war. Oil is much cheaper than blood — both to humans and the "evil KKKorporations"... Venezuela — not anyone from the Middle East — used to be our main foreign oil supplier, but we neither attacked it nor planned to, even though its leaders kept talking up the threat of "American invasion" to justify their own failures.
Will this stupid meme ever die? Not as long as Kremlin propagandists keep pushing it, I suppose... Meanwhile, Russia itself is busy sabotaging — and even invading — anybody with gas deposits, that might compete with Gazprom. Putin much?
Thankfully, a person, who'd choose to attack the speaker, rather than the content of the speech, removes all doubts about himself with a single utterance — no need to study his other communications at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you dimwit, it does not. Had it been something silly and non-threatening, the guy wouldn't have had a problem finding a job to begin with. There is no law barring employment for felons — on the contrary, the state goes out of its way to encourage employers to hire them, to reduce recidivism.
If the individual employers have all turned him down and his only hope is to have his record expunged, then it must have been something genuinely scary.
They probably are. To be born and raised in the USA — the country, to which millions of people dream of migrating (legally and otherwise) — and waste your youthful years on crime? Something must be seriously wrong with you and I don't blame people, who, given a choice (this is a land of the free, remember?) refuse to associate with you...
Yes, his questions are legitimate. And so are the answers...
It would be a mistake to assume, the problem is unique to our period in history. USSR was conducting its covert propaganda campaigns decades before, and they weren't the first to invent such methods either.
For example, compare the world's reaction to American invasion of Korea — to prevent Communists from taking over the country — with the same sort of thing in Vietnam a few years later... The motivation was the same, the methods were the same, the goals were the same — what little differences existed, they were immaterial.
And yet, the Vietnam war was denounced by so many, it remains a "black" page of American history, wheres Korean war is, generally, acceptable... Characters of "M.A.S.H." maybe skeptical of the events around them, but nobody claims, the US was evil to do, what it did — in stark contrast to anything having to do with Vietnam. What gives? By the time of Vietnam war, USSR had enough influence to begin working-up the outrage...
It is no secret, that to change public opinion on a matter, it is best to start in schools (if you have time). Leftists have taken to that in spades — having a government job naturally appeals to Illiberals... They certainly are entrenched in the education system now, but that's a consequence of Russia's help for (and guidance of) anti-Americans world-wide — not the reason.
Today the same contrasts — and the double-standards — continue. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, the world's streets exploded in outrage. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the reaction on the street — both in the US and in Europe — is notable by its absence. Are some invasions better than others? Or is it simply that some invaders have a world-wide network of influence over the loudest mouths most likely to riot, while others do not?
They always had a voice. Internet is just another medium for it...
First, because otherwise he wouldn't have had such problems with hiring managers. We've all seen these questionnaires:
If that's all it was, it would not have been a problem in most companies — there are no laws banning from felons from working on most things. But in a free country, such as ours, you can't force people to hire and/or work with someone they are afraid of either...
And second, if it were only drug-possession, he would've mentioned it in his question — no, it was something more reprehensible.
No, that's not quite true. Though "drug abuse violations" are, indeed, at the top of the list of felonies in the US, these include things far more sinister, than mere possession...
Somehow I doubt, the asker was convicted only of violating something as stupid as possession of dildos or innocent as that of marijuana — he would've said so (if any employer even paid attention to it in the first place).
No, he was, by all appearances, genuinely guilty of at least one violent crime — plus some misdemeanors. I'm not saying, he "deserves" never to work in IT at all, but I don't blame the IT-folks — most of whom have not hit anybody in anger since middle school — for not wanting to work (be under the same roof!) with such a guy.
Why would you choose to drag out your anti-Americanism over this, is beyond me...
I sure am glad to have a tech-savvy Administration in Washington for once. Finally we have someone, who uses the same devices we do and appreciates their security. Someone, who "gets" of building web-sites, the importance of competition among ISPs, and other deeply technical issues.
Citations needed. With WikiLeaks and Snoweden out there, you should have no problem coming up with 10 counter-examples for each example listed in Mitrochin Archive. Start with assassins...
But I was not even that outraged with USSR/Russia themselves — my anger is with the domestic fools ("useful idiots" as the USSR/Russia affectionately refer to them) — who do their utmost to sabotage their own countries, not realizing, the only beneficiaries of their efforts are foreign enemies.
Everybody wants to influence others to see his point of view — that's natural. But your attempts to equate US with USSR (and today's Russia) fail the second your audience recalls, that our ideology is demonstrably superior to theirs. We may not be the "best" possible, but we are much better. It is therefor Ok to promote our ideology, while anybody promoting Communism — if only by wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt in public — belongs on a lamp-post...
No, it is not, actually. Not even close...
First of all, labor, however heavy, does not automatically mean value. A man can spend 4 hours digging a hole, and 4 more hours filling it up. At the end of the 8 hours he is very tired, his hands are callused, but his hard labors produced no value whatsoever.
On the other hand, an old cell-phone charger may be of no use to me, but to a buyer — who still uses that peculiar cell-phone — it may be very valuable. My sale of the charger to him has just created value...
Distinction — maybe. But distinction without difference. Because any argument, with which you can come up to justify government intervention on behalf of a seller of labor, can also be applied to sellers of iPhones and orange juice...
And then, 30 years later, will we finally put the "global warming" to rest?
When you get millions of dollars in funding to look for a black cat in a dark room without a cat, you may as well spend it on partying...
... and, of course, on asking for more...
You can "categorically state" it, but it may still be the truth. Matt Damon didn't know either...
Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...
Today FBI warns us about Cuban intelligence targeting academics (they don't have to name Russia by name here):
Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...
The similarity of goals make for strange bed-fellows. Russia and Saudi Arabia may have little else in common, but they are both major exporters of fossil fuels. Not having the same sort of spy-network as Russia, Saudis finance propaganda movies. Russia would do that too, of course — and take care of translating such movies for audiences in Russia and its Russian-speaking neighbors.
And when propaganda-campaigns fail to stop other countries from developing their own energy-sources, Russia will invade...
Demagoguery. You could say the same thing about a person selling anything — his house, car, bicycle, anything — not just labor.
Do you want the government to force any would-be buyer to pay a "fair" price for the house, car, or family jewels, etc.? No? What if the seller has no health insurance? How is selling one's labor different?
It is the only system. Whatever is being sold, buyer wants to pay less, seller wants to get more — always. They negotiate and either come to some agreement, or walk away. Anything else — such as the government helping one of them against the other — is tyranny and a road to hell....
It is not your employer's fault, that you have "mouths to feed" — they are offering you a certain salary, and you are free to take it or ask for more. The second you think of asking the government to compel the hitherto voluntary party into doing something they don't want to do, you become evil.
Yes, it is quite possible, that you may be able to convince the would-be buyer, that he can't find a better deal — by agreeing with other would-be sellers to hold a certain price. This still does not change the basic economic principle I put forth — that nothing has an inherent value, and everything is worth exactly as much, as a buyer is willing to pay.
This is why I insist, unions — or any other individual methods of persuasion (legal and otherwise) — are off-topic here.
I don't have a safe work environment — a variety of assholes have been protesting some thug being killed by a policeman, whom he attacked, all week. Getting in and out of the office was rather unpleasant, but I don't blame my employer for that.
A valuable employee, such as myself, will be provided with whatever is reasonably needed for him to do his job — whether or not some law requires it or not.
This really has nothing to do with minimum pay. Let's stay on topic.
You got it, my good man. Just as you are allowed to buy stuff at discount, employers are (or ought to be) allowed to buy your labor at a discount.
So long as every such transaction is voluntary for both sides, there is not a problem.
Let's not get side-tracked with unions — they really are offtopic.
Dear government! My nasty employer would not pay me, what I deserve. Please, pass a law to make him pay me more.
No, you don't "deserve" anything other than what you negotiate. If you don't like your pay, look for another job — things, including your labor, do not have inherent value. Everything is worth exactly as much, as someone is willing to pay for it.
My first thought too. One way would include a special fish-tank car being pushed in front of the locomotive...
If that's, how you choose to read the Second Amendment, then the First must only — in your reading — protect speech of those, who petition the government. And only if the petition is for redress of grievances.
And yet, numerous court-decisions (including those immortalized in the "People vs. Larry Flynt") ruled, that the First Amendment protects even pornography...
And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat? He said:
You were referring to post-9/11 legislation (see title of this subthread). The Clinton-signed Act of 2000 was the closest to 9/11 (before or after). While it was possible, you've made a mistake of one year, I could not imagine, you'd be associating a law of 1984 with anything "post-9/11".
Then you've been reading crap. The civil forfeitures are just another manifestation of the major flaw of our — and British — law. While there are various commendable protections for your person (habeas corpus/presumption of innocence, right to bail, 4th and 5th Amendments, et ctera), there is nothing explicitly protecting your property. It can be — indeed, has been — seized by the Executive on a whim. And, of course, Democrats (such as the already-mentioned FDR) are guiltier of it than Republicans.
The income tax may be considered another manifestation of the same flaw...
He-he... I doubt, we'll get a poll, but here is what it looks like:
Why would you bring up Republicans at all — in a follow-up to a tiny post about the Second Amendment — if not to blame them for the blatant Second Amendment violations?
They may have been misguided at that, but they weren't evil. Whereas anybody openly advocating for Hamas or Communists are advocating for evil...
Republicans are not my tribe. But a Libertarian in today's USA would be crazy to align with the Democrats. Because "it is the economy, stupid". Even if some uber-Conservative manages to gain power and outlaw abortions, gasp, I'll still have enough money to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if Obamas are allowed to run the country for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a 24x7 free abortion clinic next door will be of very little consolation...
Khmm, I noticed, you've been following me around. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
The untruths consisted of:
No, you didn't explicitly say "Democrats are innocent", but a lie by omission is still a lie.
The one time I sent ACLU money, they sent me a membership card (I still have it). Two weeks later a solicitation to subscribe to "The Nation" (a disgusting Communist rag) arrived at the same address (I tag both my electronic and regular mail addresses with strings identifying the correspondents). The card had a picture showing American President in chains on it — anybody publishing such a picture today would've been denounced as "racist" and investigated by the Secret Service.
That ACLU would choose to ally itself with Illiberals in general and Communists in particular is why I'm now deeply suspicious of anything else they do. The staunchest of American Conservatives treat gays and the Freedom of Speech better, than Hamas or USSR, which are subject of much sympathy and even praise of "The Nation"...
Nope. Though neither are, of course, Libertarian, the Democrats are much worse. What a Republican like Bush would do reluctantly and as an exception — be it the already mentioned civil forfeitures or drone killings — a Democrat would do willingly and make it a rule.
Lastly, Republicans may not agree with Libertarians on everything, but only Democrats openly sneer at us. Right here on /..
I seem to remember a vastly bipartisan support for these laws after 9/11... I don't think, you can plausibly single RethugliKKKans out.
Worse, Democrats had 4 years of majority in both Chambers of Congress — two of those years with a fellow Democrat in the White House. If they have not abolished these laws during the times, they are just as a guilty.
Back to my original point of the Second Amendment right — rather than state surveillance or, indeed, forfeitures — are you seriously going to argue, it is the Democrats, who champion our right to keep and bear arms? Really? Go ahead, make my day...
So, the civil forfeiture is RethugliKKKans' fault too? Wow... Though reformed in 2000 (ans signed by that famous Republican William Clinton a year before 9/11), the outrage has been been with us since, at least, The Prohibition! And how neat of you to neglect to mention the IRS' newly-developed habit of seizing not just suspect cash found in a car-trunk, but bank-accounts. The New York Times article describes the practice — which greatly expanded under Obama: from 114 such confiscations in 2005 to 639 in 2012.
And the greatest money-confiscation of all? 1933, Frank Delano Roosevelt. What Party was he from, remind me, please?
Yeah, you certainly have forgotten everything, that inconveniences your lie-telling...
Why not? It is a perfectly natural process.
A bragging Athenian once told a Spartan:
Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...
The US is the world's biggest oil producer nowadays. Getting Iraq's oil back then — which anti-Americans like yourself keep alluding to — would've been far simpler by simply lifting the embargo, not go to war. Oil is much cheaper than blood — both to humans and the "evil KKKorporations"... Venezuela — not anyone from the Middle East — used to be our main foreign oil supplier, but we neither attacked it nor planned to, even though its leaders kept talking up the threat of "American invasion" to justify their own failures.
Will this stupid meme ever die? Not as long as Kremlin propagandists keep pushing it, I suppose... Meanwhile, Russia itself is busy sabotaging — and even invading — anybody with gas deposits, that might compete with Gazprom. Putin much?
Thankfully, a person, who'd choose to attack the speaker, rather than the content of the speech, removes all doubts about himself with a single utterance — no need to study his other communications at all.