The more of this bullshit you shovel, the less sense you make.
According to the text of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Law of the Land: superior to all rulings, precedents, laws and executive actions from any branch of government. Article VI is not subject to context. It's the law. Period.
You are simply opposed to the Constitution, because you view the Supreme Court as a simple expression of autocracy and not one co-equal branch of a limited government.
The only problem in this country is a government that ignores the law. That and people who start sentences with the word "actually."
Women, by and large, are no longer interested in having children by means that would provide for their care and upbringing. They don't want to be wives. They don't want to be mothers in any recognizable traditional sense.
They'd sure like to fuck you if you're tatted-up, drug-addicted, illiterate, unemployed and likely to move to another continent if she gets knocked up. Then she'll go out and find some nice guy to pay for her new "family."
The current legal situation facing would-be fathers makes starting a family more painful than not.
Any man who fathers a child has armed the mother with an incredibly destructive weapon which she can fire at will. The results for the father are financial ruin, loss of his home, loss of his marriage/girlfriend/whatever-the-hell-she-calls-herself, loss of his children, litigation and potential criminal prosecution.
The wife/girlfriend/whatever has significant incentives to fire that weapon: decades of financial support, a free home, the freedom to go fuck some other guy/guys/appliance/porn actor, the satisfaction of destroying her new enemy emotionally as well as practically, total control of the process, the ability to be the center of attention for months and possibly years and the ability to cast herself as the hero and her new enemy as a monster. Why, she can even star in her own reality show.
Although I have never been married, I can't see any reason why any intelligent man would risk all that just to father children. Among other things, this also probably explains why so many men are simply opting out of society altogether.
A 1.5% chance to father an autistic child is really not high on the priority list of things to avoid in 2014.
It's also why millions of women will never be mothers and never be married. Their potential husbands have given up and God bless them one and all. They are only trying to protect themselves from a society that is literally holding a gun to their wallet.
There is nothing wrong with feminism per se. It's only when it became an excuse to hate and destroy men that it began destroying women and our children.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Dred Scott wasn't a person.
If "several" of the Bill of Rights protections do not apply to school children, who gets to decide which is which? Can they be held without trial? Questioned without a lawyer? Denied a jury trial? Convicted on secret evidence?
Forced to pray to whatever god the school deems appropriate?
Oh shit, it looks like your argument just turned around and took a nice thick bite out of your smart ass. Next time a little less mouth might serve you well.
No, it's still valuable to society and themselves that they learn to near the best of their abilities
Oh, but I'm sorry you're contradicting yourself. According to you all students learn to the best of their abilities. It's genetic, remember?
Also, according to you, no student can exceed their genetic potential, which renders meaningless all academic achievement. After all, what achievement is there in simply staying alive long enough to allow a chemical reaction to take place?
I know its very comforting for you to simply sweep aside things like hope, human potential and emotion in favor of equations, but I'm afraid the world won't fit in the small box you're trying to force it into.
I think you'll find that most civilized people consider valuing human life in genetic terms rather distasteful. That's the nicest way I can phrase it, by the way.
Was the year of the Linux desktop. Pretty much every intelligent computer user has done their development and real work on a Linux or UNIX machine for the last 40 years.
Spam is not "any e-mail or message that I don't want to read." Such a definition renders one person introducing themselves to another person via e-mail "spam," which is absurd.
Oh by the way. When did Google become the Internet police? Altering the contents of an e-mail is a violation of U.S.C. title 17 sections 101, 106, et al. So is altering the contents of a third party's website: something Google does regularly with neither permission nor legal authority.]
It might work for selective education for the higher aptitude schools, but for comprehensive schools or the lower aptitude schools it's just going to demotivate those battling genetics and losing.
Oh, so scholastic achievement is tied to genetics now? Well, now that it's settled we can just test them at birth and throw all the 'D' students off a cliff.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even hear yourselves.
Even if you can reform the company and make it "do the right thing," it sure as hell won't be more profitable.
Bullshit. Not everything shows up on a spreadsheet. There are a dozen ways to make faster Internet access and more open Internet access more profitable than a backwards closed system.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not at all, and I'm fairly sure Comcast has not been.
Unfortunately your theory doesn't match the facts.
Here's the progression:
1. Netflix is slow on Comcast
2. Neflix pay$$$$$$ Comcast to speed up their traffic
3. Netflix is faster on Comcast
Now this could be an elaborate post hoc ergo propter hoc, except that Comcast accepted payment specifically to speed up traffic.
Therefore, proof.
If the Supreme Court gets their power from an agreement, who are the parties involved in that agreement?
The states.
By the way, only a towering asshole would argue that anyone invoking the Constitution is appealing to a piece of magic paper.
Enjoy your dumbass literalist handjob.
The more of this bullshit you shovel, the less sense you make.
According to the text of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Law of the Land: superior to all rulings, precedents, laws and executive actions from any branch of government. Article VI is not subject to context. It's the law. Period.
You are simply opposed to the Constitution, because you view the Supreme Court as a simple expression of autocracy and not one co-equal branch of a limited government.
The only problem in this country is a government that ignores the law. That and people who start sentences with the word "actually."
I don't want to live on a planet where people believe in magic paper.
Good. The exits are clearly marked. Door. Ass. All that shit.
and so one of the biggest deals in tech history had to be scheduled around my M&M award ticket
There are no grown-ups running businesses in this country.
The Supreme Court is a group of people.
Who derive all their power from the old piece of paper sitting in a museum.
You'd be funny if you weren't quite so tragic.
that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration
I may not be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the Seventh Amendment trumps the Supreme Court.
So does Congress.
And the states
And the People
Now Netflix has incontrovertible proof Comcast has been throttling their service.
Comcast's binding arbitration, no class action allowed clause in their service agreement.
Illegal
Women, by and large, are no longer interested in having children by means that would provide for their care and upbringing. They don't want to be wives. They don't want to be mothers in any recognizable traditional sense.
They'd sure like to fuck you if you're tatted-up, drug-addicted, illiterate, unemployed and likely to move to another continent if she gets knocked up. Then she'll go out and find some nice guy to pay for her new "family."
The current legal situation facing would-be fathers makes starting a family more painful than not.
Any man who fathers a child has armed the mother with an incredibly destructive weapon which she can fire at will. The results for the father are financial ruin, loss of his home, loss of his marriage/girlfriend/whatever-the-hell-she-calls-herself, loss of his children, litigation and potential criminal prosecution.
The wife/girlfriend/whatever has significant incentives to fire that weapon: decades of financial support, a free home, the freedom to go fuck some other guy/guys/appliance/porn actor, the satisfaction of destroying her new enemy emotionally as well as practically, total control of the process, the ability to be the center of attention for months and possibly years and the ability to cast herself as the hero and her new enemy as a monster. Why, she can even star in her own reality show.
Although I have never been married, I can't see any reason why any intelligent man would risk all that just to father children. Among other things, this also probably explains why so many men are simply opting out of society altogether.
A 1.5% chance to father an autistic child is really not high on the priority list of things to avoid in 2014.
It's also why millions of women will never be mothers and never be married. Their potential husbands have given up and God bless them one and all. They are only trying to protect themselves from a society that is literally holding a gun to their wallet.
There is nothing wrong with feminism per se. It's only when it became an excuse to hate and destroy men that it began destroying women and our children.
and can only run apps that were pre installed in the factory
False
That explains why the Kindle Fire is the third best-selling tablet.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Dred Scott wasn't a person.
If "several" of the Bill of Rights protections do not apply to school children, who gets to decide which is which? Can they be held without trial? Questioned without a lawyer? Denied a jury trial? Convicted on secret evidence?
Forced to pray to whatever god the school deems appropriate?
Oh shit, it looks like your argument just turned around and took a nice thick bite out of your smart ass. Next time a little less mouth might serve you well.
Because the more mergers our bought-off government allows, the closer we will be to an off-switch here.
Overall though, I would suggest that it is best to avoid doing anything at work
FTFY
It's the taxpayers' property, and the 4th and 5th amendments don't have an age limit.
Either get a warrant, or it's an illegal search. Case closed.
(I'm only replying because you are obviously the same person loudly and obnoxiously defending the corporate status quo above)
[x] Posted anonymously
[x] Started with the word "uh" or "actually"
[x] Used some form of the phrase "deal with it"
[x] Post 25 words or less
Troll factor: 98.3%
IQ Estimate: 70
Recommendation: Ignore
If you want to shovel shit, don't complain about the smell.
No, it's still valuable to society and themselves that they learn to near the best of their abilities
Oh, but I'm sorry you're contradicting yourself. According to you all students learn to the best of their abilities. It's genetic, remember?
Also, according to you, no student can exceed their genetic potential, which renders meaningless all academic achievement. After all, what achievement is there in simply staying alive long enough to allow a chemical reaction to take place?
I know its very comforting for you to simply sweep aside things like hope, human potential and emotion in favor of equations, but I'm afraid the world won't fit in the small box you're trying to force it into.
I think you'll find that most civilized people consider valuing human life in genetic terms rather distasteful. That's the nicest way I can phrase it, by the way.
Was the year of the Linux desktop. Pretty much every intelligent computer user has done their development and real work on a Linux or UNIX machine for the last 40 years.
Spam is:
1. Unsolicited
2. Commercial
3. Bulk
4. Off-topic
It must be all four or it is not spam.
Spam is not "any e-mail or message that I don't want to read." Such a definition renders one person introducing themselves to another person via e-mail "spam," which is absurd.
Oh by the way. When did Google become the Internet police? Altering the contents of an e-mail is a violation of U.S.C. title 17 sections 101, 106, et al. So is altering the contents of a third party's website: something Google does regularly with neither permission nor legal authority.]
It might work for selective education for the higher aptitude schools, but for comprehensive schools or the lower aptitude schools it's just going to demotivate those battling genetics and losing.
Oh, so scholastic achievement is tied to genetics now? Well, now that it's settled we can just test them at birth and throw all the 'D' students off a cliff.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even hear yourselves.
Even if you can reform the company and make it "do the right thing," it sure as hell won't be more profitable.
Bullshit. Not everything shows up on a spreadsheet. There are a dozen ways to make faster Internet access and more open Internet access more profitable than a backwards closed system.
over 51% is owned by board members
Who value profit like everyone else.
Of course, once you intentions are knows, stock will drop like hell.
It doesn't work that way.
Carl Icahn did it becasue he improved the stock price.
Carl Icahn did it because he improved shareholder value. There's a difference.
Wouldn't this just open the newly-managed Comcast up to the shareholder action for not maximizing the value of their investment?
Sure. At which point you offer them a choice: shut up and enjoy the ride or we sell the company assets and distribute the proceeds.
Ownership in America is the ultimate trump card.