I hope you don't plan on coming back again, because of course your daughter will be prosecuted for first-degree murder, and you will be prosecuted for aiding the conspiracy.
Nothing of the kind is happening to the Irish women, who go to UK to have an abortion.
So, no, I'll still take a religious fanatic, who wants to lower my taxes, over dope-smoking Socialist, who wishes to spread my wealth around.
Sorry, bloggers and authors peddling their own books? Sorry, not convinced. And how convenient, that the most recent disaster is blamed on Bush, when, in fact, the Democrats of the late 1990ies are to blame...
What deterioration?
The number of people not working is the number one sign. Not "unemployed" (who stubbornly remain a very large number in its own right), but the non-working, which includes those, who stopped actively looking for work and thus aren't counted in the unemployment figures. Yes, I'm talking about the workforce participation. Americans aren't working much — eating through the earlier-accumulated wealth and arguing on how to better "spread it around"...
True that... He was not a particularly good politician, however, which is what dragged him down — he would not have become a dictator, if elected, but working with opponents is something, he has demonstrated to be rather incapable of. Democrats and the big-government Republicans (there are plenty) would've stopped him cold, sadly...
Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity, which is the foundation of all others: as long as you have money to afford your own pleasure, you don't need the government to subsidize it... Even if Obama legalized marijuana (something he is yet to achieve, BTW), what good is it, if you can't pay for it?
On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if obamas and rangels are allowed to keep running the country into ground for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a free (just bring your own blanket) abortion clinic open 24x7 next door will be of very little consolation.
The most recent elections pitted Romney — a seasoned and self-made business executive — against Obama. "Asshole" or not (and he did come off as a nice, if boring, man), Romney's leadership would've been far more certain to stop the deterioration of our economy by now... And he could not possible have made the individual liberties any worse, than they are under Obama anyway.
Reagan was born in Chicago, but the city didn't make him — he was a Governor of California before becoming President to punish USSR. Obama was born in Ken..., err, Hawaii, but Chicago is where he was made as a politician — to punish America.
Actually, no... For decades after the Civil War the Blacks were on average poorer and more discriminated against, than they are today. But the criminality in the Black community did not pick up in earnest until 100 years after slavery was abolished — when the effects of government subsidizing single mothers kicked-in and more and more kids started growing-up fatherless.
There is a good reason, all cultures throughout history of humanity looked down on "bastards" — children of unwed mothers. Not because the woman "sinned", mind you — indeed, marrying later was acceptable and erased the stigma — but because a child growing up needs both the feminine and the masculine parent.
Subsidizing an activity encourages proliferation of it — and today there are far more single Black mothers than of any other race... "Fool, Dashiki was born pregnant! What else is new?"
I've always wondered how something can be racist if it is true.
You have to be very careful... Start the conversation pointing out, that Blacks have more melanin in their bodies. If everybody suddenly turns quiet and/or you are called racist outright, deescalate the situation by walking away.
why does it not make sense to focus your suspicions while policing on people of that race?
It might make sense — nothing in the court's decision suggested, the policy does not make sense. It is just against the law — in the justices' opinion — which is not the same thing...
In practise, black teenagers are many times more likely to have been stopped by the police.
If there are also much more likely to be dealing drugs, then the practice makes sense. If they are not, then it does not...
It breeds resentment and distrust of the police.
This is, indeed, a side-effect, which needs to be taken into account, when devising police strategy. It still does not mean, such profiling is evil or even wrong — as I said, if Black teens are more likely to be carrying drugs, they should be more likely to be stopped.(As long as drug-possession remains a crime, which is a separate topic).
Border Patrol/DHS can legally stop and harass you within 100 miles of the country border
Despite asking several times, I'm yet to see someone elaborate on what "harassment" actually means in this context...
search you without warrant, etc.
That would seem wrong — are they actually doing that (searching people without warrant and reasonable cause)? If so, is not it most ironic, that they report to the Democratic Administration, who continues to enjoy reliable support from the people affected — while Republicans like Arpaio (see above) get all the blame?
Ain't no 'border' to protect
If the border is only 100 miles away, then the above statement sounds incorrect...
they're just moving everything inland to begin racial profiling
You'll have a hard time convincing me, "racial profiling" is automatically a bad thing... If 99% of illegal border-crossers in an area are Latino-looking, then 99% (give or take) of the investigated suspects should also be Latino-looking. Sure, it is not the fault of numerous Latino-looking legal residents and citizens, that they have the same facial features as the illegal ones. But it is not the fault of the law-enforcement either...
Until I got my citizenship, I too carried my "green" card with me at all times... You are supposed to and I did not find it to be particularly burdensome.
Nobody really asked me about it, though. Not in Boston, anyway. Maybe, because they don't have a problem with rampant immigration violations by Ukrainians over there...
Their targets are anyone who tries to reveal their violations of the law of the land.
Even if this were true — and you haven't included any links to support your accusation, that such violators are prosecuted for anything other than the actual violation itself — it is not a widely-known fact.
Unlike the bogosity of the prosecutions by the actual KGB/Stasi.
Are you more obedient and scared than the east German citizens of the GDR tyranny ?
We are more obedient, because our "KGB" is nowhere near as oppressive as that of GDR or USSR. Not yet, anyway. So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals. It may or may not get there — and the trends are scary, but it is still a long way to go to get there...
Not that we can't make a fast leap forward (ahem) to cover the distance... If the IRS and other Federal departments have already been used to target opposition, what's to stop the "KGB" from being used the same way? Nothing — other than morals and scruples of the actual people there. Hardened FBI crime-fighters aren't quite the same as the IRS. But that, admittedly, is a weak defense...
He started the answer with the obligatory: "Ocean acidification is one of the most serious issues we are confronted with today."
He then followed it up with: "I haven't personally noticed any affects of acidification". To this USSR-raised reader, the above lines mean: "Acidification is a trumped-up non-issue, but if I told you so, my funding would disappeared."
you went off the deep end and claimed that Obama would like to kill all the detainees.
Oh, no, I'm sure, he would not like to do it. As I said, I don't think, he is particularly bloodthirsty. But, I'm quite certain as well, if he thought he could get away with it in order to "Close Gitmo", he'd do it... Without liking it...
The whole hoopla about Guantanamo has made the poor SOBs' fate much worse — it is now more politically palatable to kill the alleged scumbags than to detain them... It started before Obama took office, but he and his participated in making it so.
The sentiment is also the reason, the SEALs were ordered by the President to kill bin Laden, even if taking him alive were possible (which it were — at least, according to the official story).
The original prohibition was no different from the "War on Drugs": alcohol is just another substance people put inside themselves — sometimes to their peril — that government wants to regulate. Jeff Flanagan attempted to single out one drug over another to score a hit on a particular president — and I called him on it.
Was it really Nixon, who presided over the original Prohibition?
As for Obama, he surely inherited some of the problems, but — instead of alleviating them — made them worse. For the most obvious example, Obama is killing the people Bush used to try to capture... Is the Nobel Peace Prize winner really that blood-thirsty? No, he is not. But, to be able to close Guantanamo eventually, he has to stop putting new people there... And his supporters, so worked-up about people being locked-up in Gitmo, are happily ignoring his killing of the same alleged terrorists. If he thought, he could get away with simply executing all of the current detainees — so as to close the "illegal" prison down, he would've done that too...
Banning is hard — you, pretty much, need a law passed to outright ban nuclear energy. Sabotaging is much easier — and we've given the Executive government enough power over to sabotage anything. With a federal license required even for magicians' rabbits, we are at the Executive's mercy completely.
Not just opening a business (be it a pizzeria or a nuclear plant), even driving your own car is not a right, that could only be taken away by Judiciary, but a privilege, that requires an Executive-issued license. Which is all very convenient for the Executive — if they don't like an activity or a particular person/company engaging in it, they can simply withdraw the license without bothering with the pesky courts...
In this case the only competition is importing from the USA, losing all consumer protections granted under Australian laws.
Perhaps, it is exactly this "consumer protection", that makes Australian consumers less profitable and/or more dangerous to the foreign software companies? Which reflects in the costs, of course...
I don't know anything about those particular laws, but if there are provisions for multi-year warranties/guarantees, or triple money-back in certain cases, I'd understand the vendor wanting to charge more...
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing of the kind is happening to the Irish women, who go to UK to have an abortion.
So, no, I'll still take a religious fanatic, who wants to lower my taxes, over dope-smoking Socialist, who wishes to spread my wealth around.
Sorry, bloggers and authors peddling their own books? Sorry, not convinced. And how convenient, that the most recent disaster is blamed on Bush, when, in fact, the Democrats of the late 1990ies are to blame...
The number of people not working is the number one sign. Not "unemployed" (who stubbornly remain a very large number in its own right), but the non-working, which includes those, who stopped actively looking for work and thus aren't counted in the unemployment figures. Yes, I'm talking about the workforce participation. Americans aren't working much — eating through the earlier-accumulated wealth and arguing on how to better "spread it around"...
True that... He was not a particularly good politician, however, which is what dragged him down — he would not have become a dictator, if elected, but working with opponents is something, he has demonstrated to be rather incapable of. Democrats and the big-government Republicans (there are plenty) would've stopped him cold, sadly...
Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity, which is the foundation of all others: as long as you have money to afford your own pleasure, you don't need the government to subsidize it... Even if Obama legalized marijuana (something he is yet to achieve, BTW), what good is it, if you can't pay for it?
On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if obamas and rangels are allowed to keep running the country into ground for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a free (just bring your own blanket) abortion clinic open 24x7 next door will be of very little consolation.
The most recent elections pitted Romney — a seasoned and self-made business executive — against Obama. "Asshole" or not (and he did come off as a nice, if boring, man), Romney's leadership would've been far more certain to stop the deterioration of our economy by now... And he could not possible have made the individual liberties any worse, than they are under Obama anyway.
Reagan was born in Chicago, but the city didn't make him — he was a Governor of California before becoming President to punish USSR. Obama was born in Ken..., err, Hawaii, but Chicago is where he was made as a politician — to punish America.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy would not have won his election, had Chicago been a clean and honest city.
Actually, no... For decades after the Civil War the Blacks were on average poorer and more discriminated against, than they are today. But the criminality in the Black community did not pick up in earnest until 100 years after slavery was abolished — when the effects of government subsidizing single mothers kicked-in and more and more kids started growing-up fatherless.
There is a good reason, all cultures throughout history of humanity looked down on "bastards" — children of unwed mothers. Not because the woman "sinned", mind you — indeed, marrying later was acceptable and erased the stigma — but because a child growing up needs both the feminine and the masculine parent.
Subsidizing an activity encourages proliferation of it — and today there are far more single Black mothers than of any other race... "Fool, Dashiki was born pregnant! What else is new?"
You have to be very careful... Start the conversation pointing out, that Blacks have more melanin in their bodies. If everybody suddenly turns quiet and/or you are called racist outright, deescalate the situation by walking away.
It might make sense — nothing in the court's decision suggested, the policy does not make sense. It is just against the law — in the justices' opinion — which is not the same thing...
Is it really any wonder, that the two good-looking, but otherwise horrible Presidents have hailed from the city?
If there are also much more likely to be dealing drugs, then the practice makes sense. If they are not, then it does not...
This is, indeed, a side-effect, which needs to be taken into account, when devising police strategy. It still does not mean, such profiling is evil or even wrong — as I said, if Black teens are more likely to be carrying drugs, they should be more likely to be stopped.(As long as drug-possession remains a crime, which is a separate topic).
Despite asking several times, I'm yet to see someone elaborate on what "harassment" actually means in this context...
That would seem wrong — are they actually doing that (searching people without warrant and reasonable cause)? If so, is not it most ironic, that they report to the Democratic Administration, who continues to enjoy reliable support from the people affected — while Republicans like Arpaio (see above) get all the blame?
If the border is only 100 miles away, then the above statement sounds incorrect...
You'll have a hard time convincing me, "racial profiling" is automatically a bad thing... If 99% of illegal border-crossers in an area are Latino-looking, then 99% (give or take) of the investigated suspects should also be Latino-looking. Sure, it is not the fault of numerous Latino-looking legal residents and citizens, that they have the same facial features as the illegal ones. But it is not the fault of the law-enforcement either...
Nobody really asked me about it, though. Not in Boston, anyway. Maybe, because they don't have a problem with rampant immigration violations by Ukrainians over there...
Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. Which "crime"? Are you saying, Border Patrol are investigating crimes other than illegal border-crossings?
It seems like you don't know any details. Which, somehow, does not prevent you from spouting FUD about "harassment"...
And do you know any details about that?
Even if this were true — and you haven't included any links to support your accusation, that such violators are prosecuted for anything other than the actual violation itself — it is not a widely-known fact.
Unlike the bogosity of the prosecutions by the actual KGB/Stasi.
We are more obedient, because our "KGB" is nowhere near as oppressive as that of GDR or USSR. Not yet, anyway. So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals. It may or may not get there — and the trends are scary, but it is still a long way to go to get there...
Not that we can't make a fast leap forward (ahem) to cover the distance... If the IRS and other Federal departments have already been used to target opposition, what's to stop the "KGB" from being used the same way? Nothing — other than morals and scruples of the actual people there. Hardened FBI crime-fighters aren't quite the same as the IRS. But that, admittedly, is a weak defense...
This is interesting... Not the nasty Arizona police — Border Patrol? Could you elaborate on the nature of the harassment?
He then followed it up with: "I haven't personally noticed any affects of acidification". To this USSR-raised reader, the above lines mean: "Acidification is a trumped-up non-issue, but if I told you so, my funding would disappeared."
Oh, no, I'm sure, he would not like to do it. As I said, I don't think, he is particularly bloodthirsty. But, I'm quite certain as well, if he thought he could get away with it in order to "Close Gitmo", he'd do it... Without liking it...
The whole hoopla about Guantanamo has made the poor SOBs' fate much worse — it is now more politically palatable to kill the alleged scumbags than to detain them... It started before Obama took office, but he and his participated in making it so.
The sentiment is also the reason, the SEALs were ordered by the President to kill bin Laden, even if taking him alive were possible (which it were — at least, according to the official story).
The original prohibition was no different from the "War on Drugs": alcohol is just another substance people put inside themselves — sometimes to their peril — that government wants to regulate. Jeff Flanagan attempted to single out one drug over another to score a hit on a particular president — and I called him on it.
As for Obama, he surely inherited some of the problems, but — instead of alleviating them — made them worse. For the most obvious example, Obama is killing the people Bush used to try to capture... Is the Nobel Peace Prize winner really that blood-thirsty? No, he is not. But, to be able to close Guantanamo eventually, he has to stop putting new people there... And his supporters, so worked-up about people being locked-up in Gitmo, are happily ignoring his killing of the same alleged terrorists. If he thought, he could get away with simply executing all of the current detainees — so as to close the "illegal" prison down, he would've done that too...
I'm sure, all of the quoted gentlemen were Shocked. Shocked to discover "parallel reconstruction" was used here.
Not just opening a business (be it a pizzeria or a nuclear plant), even driving your own car is not a right, that could only be taken away by Judiciary, but a privilege, that requires an Executive-issued license. Which is all very convenient for the Executive — if they don't like an activity or a particular person/company engaging in it, they can simply withdraw the license without bothering with the pesky courts...
Haterz gonna hate...
It is not any more "fraudulent", than "all you can eat" buffets imposing a time-limit, for example.
Perhaps, it is exactly this "consumer protection", that makes Australian consumers less profitable and/or more dangerous to the foreign software companies? Which reflects in the costs, of course...
I don't know anything about those particular laws, but if there are provisions for multi-year warranties/guarantees, or triple money-back in certain cases, I'd understand the vendor wanting to charge more...