People who are wealthy usually live humbly. Over 80% of millionaires are first generation meaning self-made and they earned their money. Most do not have extravagant lifestyles but are just common working people who have worked smarter. Their savings and investments are more important to them than lifestyle. People like that don't have "trust issues".
You should read the statistical analysis book called "The Millionaire Next Door" it's a damn good book on the subject!
Actually this is incorrect. Jurors are supposed to try the facts, AND, the law. Why? Because if the law is unjust, then it should not be upheld. You should research something called jury nullification. Here is a good place to start-- http://www.fija.org/
This probably has to do with statutory vs actual damages. This is a provision in current copyright law. Often times damages are awarded not on statutory damages, but actual damages. Viewing the income statement for this artist will help put this into perspective.
Actually the powers delegated to the federal government were delegated by The States, not The People.
And Congress cannot vote away our rights even if every member in Congress and every person in the country agrees to it. Congress has a great limit placed upon it called the Constitution (which has largely been ignored).
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic with democratic elements. The rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority.
I just submitted this actually...oh well, I'm just glad it made it up here even if I didn't get the credit.
The fundamental problem is that big business likes big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business. Online gambling is "illegal". Go back and look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills who made it illegal, and then look at their largest donors. Guess who? Brick and mortar casinos, and Indian tribes....imagine that.
And when the utility companies are government-granted monopolies, then they are subservient to big government too. Utilities should be forced to compete in the free and open market without government subsidies or other forms of market insulation from bad decisions.
This is exactly a case which highlights why the government should be small and limited at all levels; when government gets big it inevitability restricts freedom either inadvertently, or on purpose either for its own ends or at the bequest of special interests.
The slippery slope argument here is paramount too because having a State government forcing ISPs and telcos to block specific sites sets a VERY dangerous precedent! In fact I consider this outright censorship because what's illegal about visiting a gambling website, even if one doesn't use the site to gamble.
Not to mention that making online gambling illegal violates one's right to contract which is inherent in a free society. The Constitutionality of this is questionable at best.
One of the greatest mistakes in our country was to allow something as important as our childrens' education to be handled by the government which is run by bureaucrats and politicians. The government will teach its agenda to its kids and that is a bad thing whether it's Bush or Obama or Dems or Reps in office. And the government has a vested interest in ensuring a not very well educated populace.
Even if there is a "need" for this, it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't allow for it. The Constitution is NOT suspended in times of war, in times of public danger, or in times of national emergency.
You do realize we live in a republic, not a democracy, right?
In fact we live in a Constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. But the United States is NOT a democracy!
But I agree with your premise however that in an open and free society there is no place for this sort of subversion of the rule of law (violating the Constitution).
As one of the guys who ran the Ron Paul campaign in TN, and someone who is friends with him and other members of his family, I can assure that is an accurate statement.
Our rights derive from our humanity. They are inalienable in who we are, and exist because we exist. Whether or not you believe in a creator, or Nature, it matters not... our rights still exist either way. Some people believe they were given to us by God, others believe they are the result of Nature.
Slashdot Mirror
People who are wealthy usually live humbly. Over 80% of millionaires are first generation meaning self-made and they earned their money. Most do not have extravagant lifestyles but are just common working people who have worked smarter. Their savings and investments are more important to them than lifestyle. People like that don't have "trust issues".
You should read the statistical analysis book called "The Millionaire Next Door" it's a damn good book on the subject!
Love your signature ha ha ha ha. I think you would get a kick out of this place: http://ronpaulforums.com/
Where I come from (TN) they call these things scameras.
Yes I am the guy who submitted this story.
I appreciate the shout-out, but don't I get karma points?
Actually this is incorrect. Jurors are supposed to try the facts, AND, the law. Why? Because if the law is unjust, then it should not be upheld. You should research something called jury nullification. Here is a good place to start-- http://www.fija.org/
Jurors actually have rights. If you are on a jury you need to know your rights. I suggest you read this:
http://www.fija.org/
Juries are also supposed to try the law itself too. Although this is rarely done today, the right of jury nullification is a long standing tradition.
Fully Informed Jury Association:
http://fija.org/
This probably has to do with statutory vs actual damages. This is a provision in current copyright law. Often times damages are awarded not on statutory damages, but actual damages. Viewing the income statement for this artist will help put this into perspective.
"Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?"
Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmHOteBVqKI
There is no such thing as identity theft. One cannot steal one's identity. You can someone's identity fraudulently, but you can't steal it.
Actually the powers delegated to the federal government were delegated by The States, not The People.
And Congress cannot vote away our rights even if every member in Congress and every person in the country agrees to it. Congress has a great limit placed upon it called the Constitution (which has largely been ignored).
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic with democratic elements. The rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority.
I just submitted this actually...oh well, I'm just glad it made it up here even if I didn't get the credit.
The fundamental problem is that big business likes big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business. Online gambling is "illegal". Go back and look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills who made it illegal, and then look at their largest donors. Guess who? Brick and mortar casinos, and Indian tribes....imagine that.
And when the utility companies are government-granted monopolies, then they are subservient to big government too. Utilities should be forced to compete in the free and open market without government subsidies or other forms of market insulation from bad decisions.
This is exactly a case which highlights why the government should be small and limited at all levels; when government gets big it inevitability restricts freedom either inadvertently, or on purpose either for its own ends or at the bequest of special interests.
The slippery slope argument here is paramount too because having a State government forcing ISPs and telcos to block specific sites sets a VERY dangerous precedent! In fact I consider this outright censorship because what's illegal about visiting a gambling website, even if one doesn't use the site to gamble.
Not to mention that making online gambling illegal violates one's right to contract which is inherent in a free society. The Constitutionality of this is questionable at best.
One of the greatest mistakes in our country was to allow something as important as our childrens' education to be handled by the government which is run by bureaucrats and politicians. The government will teach its agenda to its kids and that is a bad thing whether it's Bush or Obama or Dems or Reps in office. And the government has a vested interest in ensuring a not very well educated populace.
Actually you should've voted for Ron Paul ;-)
Even if there is a "need" for this, it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't allow for it. The Constitution is NOT suspended in times of war, in times of public danger, or in times of national emergency.
You do realize we live in a republic, not a democracy, right?
In fact we live in a Constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. But the United States is NOT a democracy!
But I agree with your premise however that in an open and free society there is no place for this sort of subversion of the rule of law (violating the Constitution).
You just aren't reading the right places:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.libertyforest.com/
As I have stated elsewhere:
O=W
Here it is represented visually:
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Obama/OWcopy.jpg
As one of the guys who ran the Ron Paul campaign in TN, and someone who is friends with him and other members of his family, I can assure that is an accurate statement.
Violating the Constitution is the same whether it's on domestic policy or foreign policy. Both should be tried for high crimes.
Where in the Constitution does it grant Congress the power to do this?
Can someone cite where in the Constitution that this sort of action is allowed?
Our rights derive from our humanity. They are inalienable in who we are, and exist because we exist. Whether or not you believe in a creator, or Nature, it matters not... our rights still exist either way. Some people believe they were given to us by God, others believe they are the result of Nature.
Are you trying to say that the Russians are now safer than our American space system?!?!?