Marty is a perfectly cromulent nickname for Martin. So you'll always be Marty to me. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing you can do about it, so best to just accept it and move on with your life.
That's a lot of nonsense. They can decide that some people will come out cleared of their charges ahead of time, too.
True. But can you prove that that's what's happened? Or is this just wild speculation on your part?
I still maintain that implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US showed them the way is borderline racist. And while there's an argument to be made (and one I would agree with) that our government's behavior has given an excuse to other nations who act the same way or worse, it's absurd to think they're only doing it because of us.
The original poster's point was not that Cuba is merely doing the same thing the US government does. He specifically stated they are following our example, then used the loaded term "kangaroo court". This reveals two falsehoods:
1) Cuba is not following the US's example, they've been doing these kinds of things for years independent of the US doing them. 2) A kangaroo court presumes the outcome is known in advance. However, several of the defendants of the military tribunals at Gitmo have been cleared of wrongdoing and released. You don't have to agree with the policy that created these tribunals or their propriety to recognize they are not, at all, "kangoroo courts".
So yes, implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US is is at best borderline racist, and calling military tribunals "kangaroo courts" is just tu quoque on top of it all.
Now, if none of that is what dugeen meant, then maybe he needs to pick his words more carefully in the future. But that's not my problem if he's functionally illiterate on top of being borderline racist and illogical.
It does seem odd that the US government would sponsor a mission like this, which doubtless cost quite a bit of money and now this guy his freedom, and yet they won't do something simple like, oh, I dunno, lift the embargo and let Cubans buy all kinds of cheap communications equipment. Hell, we could flood their entire country with throwaway items from 10 years ago that would still be more advanced than what most people there use, and even provide free WiMax to the whole country for less than what this operation probably cost.
But the goal does not appear to be just freeing the Cuban people, it's to punish Castro. The irony is that if we ended the embargo and just ignored him he'd fall quickly enough (if only because it would take away the convenient Goldstein he has to focus his people's anger at).
Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts
Wow, so you're a racist who thinks Cubans can't do anything on their own, and you throw out a groundless tu quoque argument from the get go. Impressive.
A right, by definition, does not require action on the part of another.
That's only true for negative rights. And while I agree with you that positive "rights" are just a pleasant sounding cover for forcing people to act a certain way, a large swath of the population (especially in Europe) holds those rights as dearly as the traditional right to be left alone.
Re:Is it Twelvember yet?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
One of the reasons the French calendar failed was that it only allowed for one day off in 10. If they had gone with a five-day week (still evenly divides into a 30-day month), with one day off each week, the people of France probably would've accepted it more readily.
Kind of ironic considering the French now have three days off in seven....
You seem to think our leaders have no trouble with being hypocrites. Quite the opposite. Hillary Clinton has no trouble letting security guards rough up a peaceful protester while giving a speech denouncing such actions in other countries.
To say that you missed the point of my post would be like saying that the sun is just a little warm.
How about we just not have those expensive logistical systems in the first place? Trim back the military spending and stop relying on them for every single problem that comes up. The military is not a hammer, and all of society's problems are not nails.
Who fucking cares? There's plenty of culpability to go around, I'd rather people focused on solving the problem than keep pointing fingers and saying "Nope, it was your fault, so now that you're trying to fix it I want my turn to make things worse."
Right there, in blue and white, using the government's own numbers. Since the end of WWII, revenue as a percent of GDP has touched 20% but never gone above it. Meanwhile, our spending has outstripped our revenue tremendously.
Don't fucking call me a liar when the facts are on my side, asshole.
You're missing the point. You could jack up the tax rate to what it was under Eisenhower and it wouldn't make any difference. The net receipts would still be 19% of GDP.
You have to cut spending, you can't depend on increasing revenues. It just doesn't work that way.
Increasing taxes rarely, if ever, results in a net increase in revenue. The government typically gets about 19% of GDP, even accounting for all of the different tax hikes and reductions. As the government taxes more, less wealth is produced, resulting in a lower GDP.
The best solution is to target government spending at no more than 16% of GDP, and earmark a minimum of 3% of GDP to go towards the deficit. This would mean both that we wouldn't keep adding to the current debt, and the current debt would be completely paid off in 33 years (actually less, because the debt is fixed yet GDP would continue to rise, but we can ignore that for the sake of this discussion). That's a manageable amount of time for the kind of debt we're talking about.
Information is speech. Net neutrality would dictate how private networks would handle information. Therefore, it would be a regulation regarding speech. How can you not see that?
The government can't force newspapers to carry opinion articles from a given syndicate, they can't force package delivery companies to except every single package someone might want to send, and they can't force cable companies to carry every single channel that's available. So why should they be able to force ISPs to treat all packets equally? Let the market sort it out.
The important thing to learn here is, Trumpet Winsock was shareware that charged $10. The interviewed writer himself says it was after he lowered his price from $9.95 to $.99 that things took off. Maybe if the guy who wrote Trumpet had charged $1 per copy, he would've gotten some actual sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Marty is a perfectly cromulent nickname for Martin. So you'll always be Marty to me. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing you can do about it, so best to just accept it and move on with your life.
That's a lot of nonsense. They can decide that some people will come out cleared of their charges ahead of time, too.
True. But can you prove that that's what's happened? Or is this just wild speculation on your part?
I still maintain that implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US showed them the way is borderline racist. And while there's an argument to be made (and one I would agree with) that our government's behavior has given an excuse to other nations who act the same way or worse, it's absurd to think they're only doing it because of us.
Way to miss the point (again), Marty.
The original poster's point was not that Cuba is merely doing the same thing the US government does. He specifically stated they are following our example, then used the loaded term "kangaroo court". This reveals two falsehoods:
1) Cuba is not following the US's example, they've been doing these kinds of things for years independent of the US doing them.
2) A kangaroo court presumes the outcome is known in advance. However, several of the defendants of the military tribunals at Gitmo have been cleared of wrongdoing and released. You don't have to agree with the policy that created these tribunals or their propriety to recognize they are not, at all, "kangoroo courts".
So yes, implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US is is at best borderline racist, and calling military tribunals "kangaroo courts" is just tu quoque on top of it all.
Now, if none of that is what dugeen meant, then maybe he needs to pick his words more carefully in the future. But that's not my problem if he's functionally illiterate on top of being borderline racist and illogical.
It does seem odd that the US government would sponsor a mission like this, which doubtless cost quite a bit of money and now this guy his freedom, and yet they won't do something simple like, oh, I dunno, lift the embargo and let Cubans buy all kinds of cheap communications equipment. Hell, we could flood their entire country with throwaway items from 10 years ago that would still be more advanced than what most people there use, and even provide free WiMax to the whole country for less than what this operation probably cost.
But the goal does not appear to be just freeing the Cuban people, it's to punish Castro. The irony is that if we ended the embargo and just ignored him he'd fall quickly enough (if only because it would take away the convenient Goldstein he has to focus his people's anger at).
Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts
Wow, so you're a racist who thinks Cubans can't do anything on their own, and you throw out a groundless tu quoque argument from the get go. Impressive.
The question wasn't "Can you remember a time when someone was funded by the Soviets", it "can you imagine what would happen if..." So if Phil Zimmerman was investigated just for creating software the Powers That Be© didn't like, it's easy to imagine from there how much harder they would come down on someone funded by an enemy state.
You've got lots of replies in this thread, just thought I'd say "well done" to them in one post.
And you're right, "entitlement" is a better adjective for what the original poster was talking about, not "right".
A right, by definition, does not require action on the part of another.
That's only true for negative rights. And while I agree with you that positive "rights" are just a pleasant sounding cover for forcing people to act a certain way, a large swath of the population (especially in Europe) holds those rights as dearly as the traditional right to be left alone.
One of the reasons the French calendar failed was that it only allowed for one day off in 10. If they had gone with a five-day week (still evenly divides into a 30-day month), with one day off each week, the people of France probably would've accepted it more readily.
Kind of ironic considering the French now have three days off in seven....
In the real world, you can post bills or hand out fliers without giving your identity. Why should things be different on the Internet?
You seem to think our leaders have no trouble with being hypocrites. Quite the opposite. Hillary Clinton has no trouble letting security guards rough up a peaceful protester while giving a speech denouncing such actions in other countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18
The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Only when Wisconsin Senators are trying to avoid a vote on a measure they don't like. /rimshot
Who do you thing built the roads in the Roman Empire
Slaves.
built the castles dotting Europe
Slaves.
that wall thingy in China
Slaves again.
You really like having slaves around, don't you?
To say that you missed the point of my post would be like saying that the sun is just a little warm.
How about we just not have those expensive logistical systems in the first place? Trim back the military spending and stop relying on them for every single problem that comes up. The military is not a hammer, and all of society's problems are not nails.
You don't need a military to have massive waterlift capability. Well-funded fire fighters would to the job.
Militaries are there to kill people and break things. If you're using them for something other than that, you're using them too much.
No, in US English it's just "lawyer".
You mean his single-female friend who hangs out with him and his wife?
No more than your original reply. "It's the other guys' fault, so let's ignore it." Pathetic.
Who fucking cares? There's plenty of culpability to go around, I'd rather people focused on solving the problem than keep pointing fingers and saying "Nope, it was your fault, so now that you're trying to fix it I want my turn to make things worse."
Disingenuous fool.
Fuck you, you piece of shit.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Right there, in blue and white, using the government's own numbers. Since the end of WWII, revenue as a percent of GDP has touched 20% but never gone above it. Meanwhile, our spending has outstripped our revenue tremendously.
Don't fucking call me a liar when the facts are on my side, asshole.
You're missing the point. You could jack up the tax rate to what it was under Eisenhower and it wouldn't make any difference. The net receipts would still be 19% of GDP.
You have to cut spending, you can't depend on increasing revenues. It just doesn't work that way.
Considering they're already paying about half the tax burden of the country, I don't think there's a lot of blood left in that turnip.
Increasing taxes rarely, if ever, results in a net increase in revenue. The government typically gets about 19% of GDP, even accounting for all of the different tax hikes and reductions. As the government taxes more, less wealth is produced, resulting in a lower GDP.
The best solution is to target government spending at no more than 16% of GDP, and earmark a minimum of 3% of GDP to go towards the deficit. This would mean both that we wouldn't keep adding to the current debt, and the current debt would be completely paid off in 33 years (actually less, because the debt is fixed yet GDP would continue to rise, but we can ignore that for the sake of this discussion). That's a manageable amount of time for the kind of debt we're talking about.
Information is speech. Net neutrality would dictate how private networks would handle information. Therefore, it would be a regulation regarding speech. How can you not see that?
The government can't force newspapers to carry opinion articles from a given syndicate, they can't force package delivery companies to except every single package someone might want to send, and they can't force cable companies to carry every single channel that's available. So why should they be able to force ISPs to treat all packets equally? Let the market sort it out.
Yes, you're right, let's not cut spending. We can continue working with trillion-dollar deficits. What could possibly go wrong?
The important thing to learn here is, Trumpet Winsock was shareware that charged $10. The interviewed writer himself says it was after he lowered his price from $9.95 to $.99 that things took off. Maybe if the guy who wrote Trumpet had charged $1 per copy, he would've gotten some actual sales.