See Article one. Freedom of speech or of the press don't apply? I think they do, and if your courts don't agree, they're wrong. You should fix that.
Article one contains nothing about freedom of speech or the press. Perhaps you mean the First Amendment? That's not an inalienable right. Inalienable rights are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which is not the Constitution.
We'll get right on fixing the courts for you, because if they disagree with you, they are wrong. After all, you've displayed expert knowledge of the US constitution.
Some of you Yanquis have completely lost the point of why you're still allowed to live there in (relative?) freedom. You fought for it and earned the right to be left alone there.
That's right. There was a price to gaining freedom. Just like there is a price for internet access. Based on our constitution, our inalienable rights were given to us by *gasp* our Creator. But someone had to pay a price (fight the British) in order to secure them. Internet access, however, is NOT listed as one of our inalienable rights.
If Thomas Friedman wants to talk about sustainability, thats great, then he should practice what he preaches. He doesn't, and he and his wife made money off one of the worst drivers of urban sprawl, large lot shopping centers.
Seriously? Your doctor can't warn you about the dangerous and addictive habit of smoking unless he has excellent will power himself?
So, you are implying that Friedman's millions, business ventures, and property ownership are due to a lack of willpower? No, my doctor can't convince me that smoking is bad if he's doing it to. Especially if he's saying the whole world needs to adopt a change that he's not willing to make himself. You know what? I'm gonna buy a couple more gas-guzzling SUVs for my car collection, and drive low MPG vehicles all the time, while using huge amounts of electricity in my 8,000 square foot house, while I'm not even home. But it's okay, because I don't have excellent will power. I can't help it.
And he's preaching that we have to move to a happiness-driven economy, where people own less? If it's so important, let's see him part with most of what he owns. If he doesn't, then it must not be as important as he claims.
You must have missed the part where Bill Clinton pulled CIA operatives out of the middle east in return for a percentage from oil profits for himself and members of his administration. Or maybe you missed the coupe attempt in Iraq that would have removed Saddam from power without any US involvement, except that Clinton waffled on support for it. BTW, how are those gas prices doing for you? They've gone down a lot since we went to war for oil, haven't they? And Libya.....it's a humanitarian mission. But we're ignoring the humanitarian issues in the Ivory Coast? Of course. There's no oil in the Ivory Coast, but there is in Libya. But, of course, that's not what it's about.
"We're leaving Iraq." We were leaving Iraq before Obama was elected. The exit plan was Bush's. Obama is just taking credit for something he was opposed to because he can spin it to make himself look good, and convince uneducated voters that will believe he is really responsible for the exit strategy. While I was in Iraq, I was predicting this very thing would happen. We (the troops) were doing the hard part, and the $#&%ing politicians were taking the credit in the polls.
I wasn't arguing with the OP's point.
Your point about the mGive Foundation and the mGive.com corporation is valid, and I give you credit for that. However, as I have pointed out, it was not on-topic with my point, which I'm lead to believe you didn't understand.
Interesting. I don't seem to recall making the point that they DON'T expect them to operate like a non-profit. It would appear you are arguing a point of contention that I never made. Which apparently results in proof that I don't understand what a non-profit is, and that I am not capable of reading?
On another note, you've stated that mGive is NOT a non-profit organization. So, is it fair for people to expect them to operate like they ARE one?
Once again, yes, I do. When you actually understand the point of my post, please come back and comment. However, it is clear that you don't. Please cite where I mentioned anything about mGive being profit/non-profit, or the amount of profit mGive makes.
Yes, I do understand how a non-profit works. What I don't understand is how people expect mGive to not take anything. They still need funding to operate, and they get that funding from those who utilize their services.
Damn mGive. Jeez. Just like the damn hospitals/police/fire department. When someone uses their services, they have the gall to actually expect payment. What the hell? Are we supposed to believe it actually costs THEM money to provide services? They don't need to pay their employees, or pay for their equipment or technology. We all know better. I can't believe the greed of all those mGive volunteers using their own computers and internet sites, using their own free time to handle these transactions, and then taking a small percentage for themselves. We all KNOW it costs you absolutely nothing to do this and you are all happy to work for free. [/sarcasm]
Seriously. Do people think mGive does not incur any operating costs? What, are they funded by that free Obama money they were giving out in Detroit?
Slashdot Mirror
See Article one. Freedom of speech or of the press don't apply? I think they do, and if your courts don't agree, they're wrong. You should fix that.
Article one contains nothing about freedom of speech or the press. Perhaps you mean the First Amendment? That's not an inalienable right. Inalienable rights are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which is not the Constitution.
We'll get right on fixing the courts for you, because if they disagree with you, they are wrong. After all, you've displayed expert knowledge of the US constitution.
Some of you Yanquis have completely lost the point of why you're still allowed to live there in (relative?) freedom. You fought for it and earned the right to be left alone there.
That's right. There was a price to gaining freedom. Just like there is a price for internet access. Based on our constitution, our inalienable rights were given to us by *gasp* our Creator. But someone had to pay a price (fight the British) in order to secure them. Internet access, however, is NOT listed as one of our inalienable rights.
If Thomas Friedman wants to talk about sustainability, thats great, then he should practice what he preaches. He doesn't, and he and his wife made money off one of the worst drivers of urban sprawl, large lot shopping centers.
Seriously? Your doctor can't warn you about the dangerous and addictive habit of smoking unless he has excellent will power himself?
So, you are implying that Friedman's millions, business ventures, and property ownership are due to a lack of willpower? No, my doctor can't convince me that smoking is bad if he's doing it to. Especially if he's saying the whole world needs to adopt a change that he's not willing to make himself. You know what? I'm gonna buy a couple more gas-guzzling SUVs for my car collection, and drive low MPG vehicles all the time, while using huge amounts of electricity in my 8,000 square foot house, while I'm not even home. But it's okay, because I don't have excellent will power. I can't help it.
And he's preaching that we have to move to a happiness-driven economy, where people own less? If it's so important, let's see him part with most of what he owns. If he doesn't, then it must not be as important as he claims.
the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
And the moon will survive?
You must have missed the part where Bill Clinton pulled CIA operatives out of the middle east in return for a percentage from oil profits for himself and members of his administration. Or maybe you missed the coupe attempt in Iraq that would have removed Saddam from power without any US involvement, except that Clinton waffled on support for it. BTW, how are those gas prices doing for you? They've gone down a lot since we went to war for oil, haven't they? And Libya.....it's a humanitarian mission. But we're ignoring the humanitarian issues in the Ivory Coast? Of course. There's no oil in the Ivory Coast, but there is in Libya. But, of course, that's not what it's about.
"We're leaving Iraq." We were leaving Iraq before Obama was elected. The exit plan was Bush's. Obama is just taking credit for something he was opposed to because he can spin it to make himself look good, and convince uneducated voters that will believe he is really responsible for the exit strategy. While I was in Iraq, I was predicting this very thing would happen. We (the troops) were doing the hard part, and the $#&%ing politicians were taking the credit in the polls.
Feels more like a latex glove. Bend over.
I'm not sure what the Orange County Republicans have to do with the Democratic governor's proposed cuts to the state library funding...
The state library cuts were publicized mid-January. They were part of the proposed budget by Gov Jerry Brown. Hardly an OC republican.
I wasn't arguing with the OP's point. Your point about the mGive Foundation and the mGive.com corporation is valid, and I give you credit for that. However, as I have pointed out, it was not on-topic with my point, which I'm lead to believe you didn't understand.
Interesting. I don't seem to recall making the point that they DON'T expect them to operate like a non-profit. It would appear you are arguing a point of contention that I never made. Which apparently results in proof that I don't understand what a non-profit is, and that I am not capable of reading? On another note, you've stated that mGive is NOT a non-profit organization. So, is it fair for people to expect them to operate like they ARE one?
Once again, yes, I do. When you actually understand the point of my post, please come back and comment. However, it is clear that you don't. Please cite where I mentioned anything about mGive being profit/non-profit, or the amount of profit mGive makes.
Yes, I do understand how a non-profit works. What I don't understand is how people expect mGive to not take anything. They still need funding to operate, and they get that funding from those who utilize their services.
Damn mGive. Jeez. Just like the damn hospitals/police/fire department. When someone uses their services, they have the gall to actually expect payment. What the hell? Are we supposed to believe it actually costs THEM money to provide services? They don't need to pay their employees, or pay for their equipment or technology. We all know better. I can't believe the greed of all those mGive volunteers using their own computers and internet sites, using their own free time to handle these transactions, and then taking a small percentage for themselves. We all KNOW it costs you absolutely nothing to do this and you are all happy to work for free. [/sarcasm] Seriously. Do people think mGive does not incur any operating costs? What, are they funded by that free Obama money they were giving out in Detroit?
...look like Sarah Palin, and the politically correct liberals won't complain about it.
...Chips for supercomputers, but are still importing Doritos from the US for their LAN parties.
"Jobs is the one who comes off as a fucktard."
So it's historically accurate?
Yes. Because Apple has always lagged behind the market, and has never invented anything original or successful.