1. The web site is for profit - it contains commercial advertising.
2. Some of the articles dispute advice given by organizations like the American Diabetics Association. Therefore it is likely harmful.
This is clearly not a case of censorship. It's a case of a guy giving out potentially harmful medical advice for a profit.
It's disgusting and should be illegal. If somebody gets sick and dies (and yes diabetes is a life threatening disease) this jerk should be brought up on murder charges.
I'm 62 and do fine in this field. Mostly because I have a good math background and can pick up a new technical domain at a fundamental level pretty easily.
Sorry but I have read it many times. PERHAPS you should do a little reading as to the intent and history behind it, and how it interacts with the rest of the constitution, in particular the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the history of the Alien and Sedition Act.
You might also want to consider the 16th and 17th amendments which in limit the 10th amendment.
Then of course there is the flap about the word "expressly" in the 10th amendment, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.
As far as the Obamacare individual mandate, please go look up Wickard v. Filburn.
The gold standard is really bad because it restricts growth of the money supply to the amount of gold that is dug out of the ground. Hopefully your economy is growing faster than that rate which is pretty small. If it is you have the issue of a deflationary bias, which makes it much harder to justify investing in a new business because the value of the money you already have is increasing with time on it's own.
This problem with deflation reducing investment is why just about every economist believes an inflationary bias is good for economic growth - it encourages investment rather than just accumulation.
We are in the middle of a long and hard recession. People are not going to be happy with what is happening because they are losing homes or their retirement funds have been ravaged, and they can't afford to buy gas for a big ole SUV. Their kids are loaded down with education debt and are living at home.
Any poll is going to turn up a lot of pissed off people in times like this,
The constitution was written because the Founders recognized that a strong central government was needed. The structure you are talking about with very strong states was already in place under the Articles of Confederation and was already failing badly - there were even local rebellions - cf. Shays' Rebellion because states could not manage their finances, or the split of Vermont from NY.
What you are proposing is encapsulated in the Articles as "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right . . . not . . . expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
What you are proposing was tried some 240 years ago. It failed then, and would fail even more quickly now.
I think he is honest, and has a program he believes in. However I also think he has some wrong ideas. A gold standard? Elimination of the separation of church and state?
The field of high energy physics requires these ever increasing expenditures almost by definition.
However it is silly to correlate this with all of science, or even all of physics. There is lots of perfectly good science that doesn't requires this scale, and in fact it might well be that allocation of these vast sums of money to these types of projects is a mis-allocation in the sense that you may get far greater return on the investment in other areas.
Not bloody likely. He may try to implement some ideas, but as soon as he tries to issue debt the cold reality will be like a dog running full speed hitting the end of his leash.
Small problem, nobody in their right mind would take a job that made them personally subject to criminal prosecution for the actions of others.
As far as owners of small corporations, they are eligible for the corporate liability shield just as much as any other owner of a corporation. You can't sue them any more than you can sue CALPERS.
You seem to be woefully ignorant of corporate law, the reasons behind it, and it's history. Perhaps you should do some reading.
Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out.
If corporations weren't people you couldn't take them to court and sue them when they behaved poorly.
The problem is the political status of corporations. They shouldn't have the ability to make campaign contributions or lobby etc. The aggregate financial power distorts the process.
It's a surrogate for voting which they feel entitled too because they pay taxes.
IMNSHO corporations should not be taxed nor be able to participate in politics. The taxes should fall on the owners of the corporations - which will get rid of a lot of distortions in the tax system including preferential treatment of dividends.
Slashdot Mirror
Giving health advice without an appropriate license is NOT protected speech.
The right of free speech does NOT override the State's interest and right to protect the general public.
Here's a similar case from Texas.
http://www.casewatch.org/board/dent/kelley/appeal1.shtml
1. The web site is for profit - it contains commercial advertising.
2. Some of the articles dispute advice given by organizations like the American Diabetics Association. Therefore it is likely harmful.
This is clearly not a case of censorship. It's a case of a guy giving out potentially harmful medical advice for a profit.
It's disgusting and should be illegal. If somebody gets sick and dies (and yes diabetes is a life threatening disease) this jerk should be brought up on murder charges.
It's never been considered 'freedom' to commit fraud.
Those responsible should be sacked!
I'm 62 and do fine in this field. Mostly because I have a good math background and can pick up a new technical domain at a fundamental level pretty easily.
Sorry but I have read it many times. PERHAPS you should do a little reading as to the intent and history behind it, and how it interacts with the rest of the constitution, in particular the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the history of the Alien and Sedition Act.
You might also want to consider the 16th and 17th amendments which in limit the 10th amendment.
Then of course there is the flap about the word "expressly" in the 10th amendment, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.
As far as the Obamacare individual mandate, please go look up Wickard v. Filburn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Public_religious_expression
The gold standard is really bad because it restricts growth of the money supply to the amount of gold that is dug out of the ground. Hopefully your economy is growing faster than that rate which is pretty small. If it is you have the issue of a deflationary bias, which makes it much harder to justify investing in a new business because the value of the money you already have is increasing with time on it's own.
This problem with deflation reducing investment is why just about every economist believes an inflationary bias is good for economic growth - it encourages investment rather than just accumulation.
We are in the middle of a long and hard recession. People are not going to be happy with what is happening because they are losing homes or their retirement funds have been ravaged, and they can't afford to buy gas for a big ole SUV. Their kids are loaded down with education debt and are living at home.
Any poll is going to turn up a lot of pissed off people in times like this,
The constitution was written because the Founders recognized that a strong central government was needed. The structure you are talking about with very strong states was already in place under the Articles of Confederation and was already failing badly - there were even local rebellions - cf. Shays' Rebellion because states could not manage their finances, or the split of Vermont from NY.
What you are proposing is encapsulated in the Articles as "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right . . . not . . . expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
What you are proposing was tried some 240 years ago. It failed then, and would fail even more quickly now.
Oh poop. The Constitution as intended lasted about two weeks after the first congress convened when exemptions to the 4th amendment started appearing.
It isn't some bright word of God graven on stone tablets. It's the establishment of a governmental structure and not a lot more.
I think he is honest, and has a program he believes in. However I also think he has some wrong ideas. A gold standard? Elimination of the separation of church and state?
These ideas are a giant step backwards.
If the free market were such a great thing then there would be a country with a great economic success record as a result of practicing it.
Hasn't happened.
The field of high energy physics requires these ever increasing expenditures almost by definition.
However it is silly to correlate this with all of science, or even all of physics. There is lots of perfectly good science that doesn't requires this scale, and in fact it might well be that allocation of these vast sums of money to these types of projects is a mis-allocation in the sense that you may get far greater return on the investment in other areas.
Also, sock puppets are cheap. It doesn't take much money to flood a forum.
It's going to be a record year for sock puppets and robocalls - lots of money is being collected.
Lots of people do this without getting caught.
http://www.dubfire.net/boarding_pass/
Glad they are closing this loophole, it is one of the very few things the TSA has done or is doing that makes sense.
Not bloody likely. He may try to implement some ideas, but as soon as he tries to issue debt the cold reality will be like a dog running full speed hitting the end of his leash.
Not to the brink. Greece is actually bankrupt, having defaulted on it's debt.
Something like you describe wouldn't be a company any more. A structure like you describe would be either a limited partnership or a trust.
Andrew Carnegie's US Steel was a limited partnership. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil was a trust.
Good luck with that.
Small problem, nobody in their right mind would take a job that made them personally subject to criminal prosecution for the actions of others.
As far as owners of small corporations, they are eligible for the corporate liability shield just as much as any other owner of a corporation. You can't sue them any more than you can sue CALPERS.
You seem to be woefully ignorant of corporate law, the reasons behind it, and it's history. Perhaps you should do some reading.
Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out.
From both sides.
Megaupload leased servers in the US. That makes them an operating entity in the US.
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
You must be new here.
If corporations weren't people you couldn't take them to court and sue them when they behaved poorly.
The problem is the political status of corporations. They shouldn't have the ability to make campaign contributions or lobby etc. The aggregate financial power distorts the process.
It's a surrogate for voting which they feel entitled too because they pay taxes.
IMNSHO corporations should not be taxed nor be able to participate in politics. The taxes should fall on the owners of the corporations - which will get rid of a lot of distortions in the tax system including preferential treatment of dividends.
Fix this and many problems go away.
Kim Dotcom may be able to escape criminal prosecution because of issues with extradition.
However there is still the matter of civil and criminal claims against Megaupload.
Given statutory damages it is highly unlikely Megaupload will ever exist as an operating entity in the US again.
Are we still really naive enough to believe anything that we do an the internet is private in any way unless precautions are take to encypt?
The naivete implicit in this being a story worth discussing is amazing.