... were informed by the homeowner that there were cameras recording
Yes, as I say, one should not do that — the officer may turn out to be a pig (not all of them deserve to be called this).
Later, they found that the homeowner broke no laws, whatsoever, but refused to return his equipment, which was worth thousands of dollars.
Yep, don't tell them — just record. If you use the records later, and they try to bring up the "wiretapping" nonsense, you can always point at the sign (good if the sign is in the recorded video). But pointing it explicitly, while they are your house, simply aggravates them without much good to you.
You may not have seen it yourself, but there is other evidence of people winning the lottery. That could be true about police brutality as well — that's why I asked GP for other evidence of it — because I have never experienced it myself.
Have you never gone to a club? A concert? A protest rally? A ball game of any kind? These things materialize when anxiousness rises and people feel angry and overwhelmed.
I've never been to a protest rally in this country (your pitiful causes are a joke to anyone with experience of real oppression), and I'm not into watching other people engage in sports. Clubs and concerts — sure, but I never felt anxious or angry after leaving one. Your life must be really sad, Panza — why do you even attend such public entertainment events, if those feelings (along with the police beating) is what they end meaning to you?
It just means YOU don't have the information yourself to make such a claim. It does NOT mean *I* do not.
I asked you for evidence and instead you chose to simply claim, that you have it... Khmm — not very convincing. The burden of proof remains on you.
Oh..that's simple...camera mysteriously gets dropped and smashed on the ground
No. What's more likely is that the officer starts acting with utmost professionalism, smiles, and fines you for various things, with which he would not have bothered otherwise. He is also going to take his sweet time issuing the ticket(s) — especially if you commit another folly by indicating, that you are in a hurry. (12 years ago I did that, and the pig took 40 minutes to issue the citation.)
If it is illegal in your locale to record people without warning, put a notice about recording on your window — he is not going to notice it, but you'll be covered — do not bring it to his attention. In general, do not argue with the policemen. All arguments should happen in court.
But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.
No, rather, because there will always be dimwits popping up to claim, that America's attempts to censor child pornography are the same thing, and we should stop criticizing others until we clean-up our own first.
And the rest of the world, fear of Russia having ebbed for a while, are happy to see a challenger to America rise (just to spite us) and will gladly forgive China sins far worse, than anything America has done.
Without Congress creating things for him to run, the president is essentially just some guy with a veto pen.
But with Congress having created things for him to run already, the President is the head of the Administration and responsible for its successes and failures. It is not called "President's Name Administration" for nothing.
It is illegal to politicize certain career government positions, & this is exactly what Gonzales / Goodling did.
Not true at all. If you read the query, it seeks the exact opposite of what you and others are claiming. There is no preference for any party in it (republican! or democrat!), and it goes far to avoid people with any involvement on any side of controversial issues (from "Florida recount" to "spotted owls").
But that's a separate point — the original was, it should not be illegal in the first place.
someone can be honest about what they're doing while still doing the wrong thing.
The "wrong thing" here is not using the bad system, which is what Republicans do, but continuing to impose the bad system which is what Republicans are opposing.
There is nothing "hypocritical" in what they are doing.
It seems, the query is just looking for people involved neither in politics in general, nor controversial subjects in particular. There is nothing in it, that would favor Republicans over Democrats, actually...
I'd guess, that was Gonzales' ideal government bureaucrat and, I bet, millions of people would share that idea...
because they were illegally filtering out applications people
The law, which the practice was violating (not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department), is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit. He may be limited by the non-discrimination laws, that apply to all employers, but political views aren't among the criteria that one can't discriminate on.
It is incredibly expensive politically to oppose such a law, so it was never challenged in court before. But I would not blame Gonzales for trying to find like-minded people for underlings.
Define welfare. You seem to not be using the same terms others are using.
Everyone is using, what suits them.
Pointing out exceptions does not contravene my point.
It does not, alright, but I don't need to disprove you — only to show, that your (attempt at) proof is incomplete. The report you presented as evidence requires much more research and interpretation. But that's boring stuff (and you'll also need to look a few decades back too), and the conclusions are likely to be far less bombastic than you are hoping for.
Per person? You are really confused. It's per dollar remitted.
The table I was referring to showed the amounts of grants per State. I divided the total amounts for a few States by each State's population (obtained from U.S. Census). Looking at the dollars remitted by each State is a different view. It was more difficult to research and less relevant, so I chose not to do it
It follows, then, that Republican states are benefited by (voluntarily! since they aren't forced to accept federal funds) the progressive tax scheme that they claim to decry.
Whether the above is true or not, there is nothing wrong with decrying, what one benefits from. In fact, it can (should?) be viewed as honorable honesty: "Even though we benefit from it, we think, it is a terrible idea and should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, we will continue milking it for all it is worth, for as long as you, fools, keep forcing it upon all of us."
Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare". See page 13 for explanation of what "grants" means in the context, and table 4 (on page 30) for the grants-distribution. And now come the surprises. For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union — Vermont — received $2.19 per person, New York — $2.34. Although Alaska got twice as much at $4.59, another "red" state such as Missouri — only $1.47 per person.
What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..
What you don't understand with our flawed system is that their is no accountability as the only people who regulate politicians...our [are? -mi] politicians.
The only alternative regulators can be either a king or a deity. The former means totalitarianism and the latter — "encroachment of religion upon government". Make your pick.
Pitting politicians against other politicians may be "flawed", but it is the best known solution... Not that their believe in deities is bad — I just wish there was more of that.
Professing to hate the welfare system while liking it enough to take advantage of it?
Using and liking are different things. "This sucks, but we'll use it as long as it is forced upon us," — is honest. Keeping quiet as long as you benefit is not.
Real conviction of belief that the welfare system is wrong would preclude taking advantage of the welfare system.
Only if it were reasonable to believe, that refusal to use it would mean a quick abolition of it. No such hope, though...
that it's liberal tax policies that have contributed the most to the disparity.
Perhaps, the Republican lawmakers' talent for extracting the pork has something to do with it too...
I just think it's wrong for the Republicans to reap the rewards while decrying the system that rewards them.
Unless they perpetuate the system by reaping its rewards, sincerely denouncing it is not only not wrong, but perfectly right and honest. "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."
I'm in favor of a progressive tax system
Meanwhile, it is remarkably stupid for the Democrats to glorify the system, that costs them as dearly as you make it sound...
There is nothing particularly hypocritical in denouncing, what you think is an awful idea, while milking it for as long as it is forced upon you anyway.
Power corrupts — I prefer Republicans strongly — but being in power for this long is not healthy.
This guy, along with a few others (Kennedy-cough-cough), are the "poster children" for term-limits on not just presidency, but other elected offices.
In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there and pay neither income nor sales tax, his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, as I say, one should not do that — the officer may turn out to be a pig (not all of them deserve to be called this).
Yep, don't tell them — just record. If you use the records later, and they try to bring up the "wiretapping" nonsense, you can always point at the sign (good if the sign is in the recorded video). But pointing it explicitly, while they are your house, simply aggravates them without much good to you.
To answer my earlier question: "What is the evidence?"
You may not have seen it yourself, but there is other evidence of people winning the lottery. That could be true about police brutality as well — that's why I asked GP for other evidence of it — because I have never experienced it myself.
I've never been to a protest rally in this country (your pitiful causes are a joke to anyone with experience of real oppression), and I'm not into watching other people engage in sports. Clubs and concerts — sure, but I never felt anxious or angry after leaving one. Your life must be really sad, Panza — why do you even attend such public entertainment events, if those feelings (along with the police beating) is what they end meaning to you?
I asked you for evidence and instead you chose to simply claim, that you have it... Khmm — not very convincing. The burden of proof remains on you.
And your evidence of this happening often is?.. I know, I have not seen it happen in my 16 years in this country...
No. What's more likely is that the officer starts acting with utmost professionalism, smiles, and fines you for various things, with which he would not have bothered otherwise. He is also going to take his sweet time issuing the ticket(s) — especially if you commit another folly by indicating, that you are in a hurry. (12 years ago I did that, and the pig took 40 minutes to issue the citation.)
If it is illegal in your locale to record people without warning, put a notice about recording on your window — he is not going to notice it, but you'll be covered — do not bring it to his attention. In general, do not argue with the policemen. All arguments should happen in court.
It is so rare, that, when it happens, they put it on YouTube...
Please, post the query outlining (in <strong>) the items, which, you feel, favor a particular party.
Put up or shut up, so to speak. Thank you.
No, rather, because there will always be dimwits popping up to claim, that America's attempts to censor child pornography are the same thing, and we should stop criticizing others until we clean-up our own first.
And the rest of the world, fear of Russia having ebbed for a while, are happy to see a challenger to America rise (just to spite us) and will gladly forgive China sins far worse, than anything America has done.
But with Congress having created things for him to run already, the President is the head of the Administration and responsible for its successes and failures. It is not called "President's Name Administration" for nothing.
Not true at all. If you read the query, it seeks the exact opposite of what you and others are claiming. There is no preference for any party in it (republican! or democrat!), and it goes far to avoid people with any involvement on any side of controversial issues (from "Florida recount" to "spotted owls").
But that's a separate point — the original was, it should not be illegal in the first place.
So, sue him...
The "wrong thing" here is not using the bad system, which is what Republicans do, but continuing to impose the bad system which is what Republicans are opposing.
There is nothing "hypocritical" in what they are doing.
It seems, the query is just looking for people involved neither in politics in general, nor controversial subjects in particular. There is nothing in it, that would favor Republicans over Democrats, actually...
I'd guess, that was Gonzales' ideal government bureaucrat and, I bet, millions of people would share that idea...
The law, which the practice was violating (not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department), is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit. He may be limited by the non-discrimination laws, that apply to all employers, but political views aren't among the criteria that one can't discriminate on.
It is incredibly expensive politically to oppose such a law, so it was never challenged in court before. But I would not blame Gonzales for trying to find like-minded people for underlings.
Everyone is using, what suits them.
It does not, alright, but I don't need to disprove you — only to show, that your (attempt at) proof is incomplete. The report you presented as evidence requires much more research and interpretation. But that's boring stuff (and you'll also need to look a few decades back too), and the conclusions are likely to be far less bombastic than you are hoping for.
The table I was referring to showed the amounts of grants per State. I divided the total amounts for a few States by each State's population (obtained from U.S. Census). Looking at the dollars remitted by each State is a different view. It was more difficult to research and less relevant, so I chose not to do it
Whether the above is true or not, there is nothing wrong with decrying, what one benefits from. In fact, it can (should?) be viewed as honorable honesty: "Even though we benefit from it, we think, it is a terrible idea and should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, we will continue milking it for all it is worth, for as long as you, fools, keep forcing it upon all of us."
That report covers (according to page 7):
Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare". See page 13 for explanation of what "grants" means in the context, and table 4 (on page 30) for the grants-distribution. And now come the surprises. For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union — Vermont — received $2.19 per person, New York — $2.34. Although Alaska got twice as much at $4.59, another "red" state such as Missouri — only $1.47 per person.
What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..
The only alternative regulators can be either a king or a deity. The former means totalitarianism and the latter — "encroachment of religion upon government". Make your pick.
Pitting politicians against other politicians may be "flawed", but it is the best known solution... Not that their believe in deities is bad — I just wish there was more of that.
Using and liking are different things. "This sucks, but we'll use it as long as it is forced upon us," — is honest. Keeping quiet as long as you benefit is not.
Only if it were reasonable to believe, that refusal to use it would mean a quick abolition of it. No such hope, though...
Perhaps, the Republican lawmakers' talent for extracting the pork has something to do with it too...
Unless they perpetuate the system by reaping its rewards, sincerely denouncing it is not only not wrong, but perfectly right and honest. "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."
Meanwhile, it is remarkably stupid for the Democrats to glorify the system, that costs them as dearly as you make it sound...
There is nothing particularly hypocritical in denouncing, what you think is an awful idea, while milking it for as long as it is forced upon you anyway.
No, that does not follow from my post at all.
And if you read the links I posted, you would've known, that it is not true either.
Citation needed. Badly.
Power corrupts — I prefer Republicans strongly — but being in power for this long is not healthy.
This guy, along with a few others (Kennedy-cough-cough), are the "poster children" for term-limits on not just presidency, but other elected offices.
In a remote state such as Alaska, where residents are paid to live there and pay neither income nor sales tax, his constituents have especially little reason to care for his wasting (and, likely, outright stealing) federal government's money, as long as they get a bit of it too.
This goes to show, once again, how much less than the current one byte per character we need to store most text...