What rights you have shouldn't be limited based on the money you have. You are saying that someone poor that prints a political flyer has more freedom in than a person able to buy commercial space. It is not right to limit an individuals rights based on the money they have.
Also, keep in mind that the more moneyed campaign lost in 2016. Just because you have lots of money does not mean you will win. It helps you, no doubt, but it isn't a guaranteed purchase.
explain how spending money is actually "speech" and so impossible for the government to regulate.
If you spend money to air a commercial should you be able to say anything political you want? (let's ignore the FCC and the stupid obscenity rules for now for simplicity) Can you spend your own money to support a candidate or call out another candidate/bill/politician/agency whatever you want? That is functionally the point. Because money allows speech to be aired or allows speech to be said then it must be that the government not limit what political speech is aired even if it costs money. It would be no different than printing out a political paper (very cheap) than buying air space for a commercial (very expensive).
Obviously it causes issues with collaborating with a political campaign because there are other laws that deal with those kind of things. But you as an individual decide to put out a commercial that says "Trump is an orange bozo. Vote against anything he does.". Should the government limit that? If you are not collaborating with any other political campaign and acting purely on your own and spending your own money on a political position you feel strongly about can the government restrict you?
If they can't, and you decide to set up a type of company to take advantage of tax law then you have effectively set up the situation we are in with super PACs. That is effectively the argument and the citizens united decision basically said that the government can't stop you individually from spending your money to air political positions.
A place where anyone can lead the nation. Sounds more like a good thing than a bad thing even if the "anyone" can be bad. In any case during the campaign Trump (and all his faults) were compared to Clinton (and all her faults) and in a majority of states voters thought the later was worse. What is the the problem ?
I guess funny in that the primaries selected two terrible candidates but at the same time one of the primaries did select an outsider that was hated by that party elite. So, there's that.
I think you missed my point. you used the qualifier "especially a woman". That signifies that you look males and females different because that was your special consideration you put on a crime. Your language is reducing women to a weaker gender by stating that a crime done to a women is "especially" more bad than if that crime had been done to a man. IOW, you are a sexist. If you weren't a sexist you wouldn't have made that distinction because there is nothing special about it or anything that would make it "especially" bad. It's bad if done to man or women nothing special to consider for classifying that crime as worse depending on the victim with regards to gender.
Also, you didn't mention physically attacking but "vaguely threatening" you are moving the goal posts because online a persons physical prowess is irrelevant. Your talking about an online issue and conflating the meat space considerations. A paraplegic can make the same "vaguely threatening" remarks and it doesn't make it "especially" bad if those remarks are toward a woman even if women are generally physically weaker. You are saying that women are weaker than men in dealing with "vaguely threatening" remarks. Which makes you a sexist. Your language. Your outlook. Your the sexist.
Why do you feel that women are weaker than men with dealing with vague threats? Do you think that it is rather patronizing to women to say that men can deal with crap online better than women? How are you better than the misogynists that you claim to hate? Doesn't that make you a misogynist? After all, you are indeed bullying women with your language into a weaker class and making them out to be victims that need a strong man like you to protect. I would look in the mirror buddy before you go around condemning others.
I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups. I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.
Not going to respond to all because I honestly don't care about an a.c.
Your refusal to finish reading what they had to say discredits you, or perhaps even makes you a hypocrite, if you are insistent on other's misrepresentations. All because you got offended at them, and chose to stalk off in a tantrum.
No. I just don't like opinion pieces masqueraded as fact that distort the truth. If an article is willing to bend the truth for one item, why wouldn't they do it for other claims? How many other little truths are bent or broken? I don't know and I would be ill-equipped to find them all if I am trying to learn about a topic or subject. It doesn't matter who they are. If they can't quote/report accurately then I don't care for their analysis because their initial fact gathering has been compromised for whatever reason.
If you're intent is to establish yourself as a poor examiner with a clear bias that is distorting your own representations and perceptions, you have done well to do so. Quite effectively.
How is wanting an accurate reporting of facts me being a poor examiner with a clear bias? I don't understand. If there is something I know that happened (because I saw it or looked into it) and I see anyone misrepresenting that event, why would I care what their analysis was of the event in question?
Sure. But I wouldn't be surprised when enough people get annoyed by federal policy's that make their life difficult and they elect someone to put those policy's to an end.
What is the difference between the OWS and the refuge protest? Hint; guns. The only person that died was one of the activists that resisted arrest. Were they taking away the rights of other citizens?
The Charleston Church Shooting... What does that have to do with protest? Maybe you don't understand between organized groups taking the rights away from other people and one crazy person acting on their bigotry alone.
As for the others, sounds like lots of talk... What is the difference between all of these examples you gave and antifa? One is taking away the rights of others on a regular occurrence. Aside from the loner that was crazy and acted on his bigotry only antifa are acting out their bigotry by taking away the rights of their fellow citizens.
Are you incapable of studying that site on your own? Do you want others [splcenter.org]?
I expect that if someone posts a link that it is not a general search or topic and expect me to figure out their point. If there was a specific post or article or w/e then at least I can draw the connection between their post and their link. The GP's post didn't connect to anything I saw I when I clicked his link. What am I supposed to think?
As far as the SPLcenter link, I stopped reading at: "He kicked off the campaign with a speech vilifying Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers." because it is obvious they are not looking for accuracy but narrative crafting. They had other language to allude to this narrative crafting but that was where I stopped caring about what they say. If they can't get something as simple as that correct then they are not worth my time.
When I or a hundred other someones get in that guys' face to tell him what an asshole he is, and how he should shut the fuck up, that's also our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Yes, but you are treading on thin ice and flirting with mob justice and rule.
especially when who you're vaguely threatening IS A WOMAN
So, you're a sexist? If you believe that men and women are equal then any crimal act against someone is just as deplorable as if it had happened to a member of the opposite sex. However, if you have some kind of conditional requirement that makes the crime "especially" worse that means you think the genders are not equal and any criminal act to a weaker sex is "especially" more bad because society in general protects the weaker members of society. Why do you think women are weaker then men?
Yes, both sides have their extremes. You started with: "cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.". The current batch on the left is anarchists, antifa, and riot. Obviously there is a stark difference as one is participating and advocating for violence.
That reddit is just The_Donald... What am I supposed to look at? I showed you specifically what I mean when I say "antifa" and "anarchists". Do you think someone is extreme for supporting Trump?
Antifa uses violence to achieve their political goals. Literally the definition of terrorism. In that thread they muse about combat training to better beat up people they don't like. If you think these are your traditional liberals, no. If you support these methods then you do not support freedom or liberty. It doesn't matter how you dress it up "punch a nazi" or "bash the fash", antifa uses violence to silence people.
You personally may not have... but I know more than a few Bernie fans who were so disillusioned that they voted for Trump in the end.
During the primaries I honestly could not believe the Clinton supporters and how arrogant they acted. "We don't need you or your vote!" was a common sentiment I saw.
I participated in both primary parties for Ron Paul (2012) and Bernie Sanders (2016) and while the GOP did do some messed up shit that bit them in the ass to ignore the delegates Ron Paul won during 2012, nothing compared to the #BernieBro resentment from the Clinton camp. It was incredible to me that there was such animosity for a different opinion in the same party. For all the faults of the GOP, they do have a fairly diverse range of ideas the party represent while the Democrats wanted to limit what is an acceptable opinion by shaming those that strayed from the party mantra.
How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.
Agreed but someone shouldn't be barred or no platform because of their opinions/ideas. Unless there is full booking or no space available (which I doubt honestly) I don't think it would be much an issue.
The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.
I haven't looked but wouldn't be surprised there is a flatearther.com. But not everyone can create a website (that argument doesn't work for other examples [google], it shouldn't work here) and if a lot of the national dialogue happens on one site (say Twitter for example) and that site is banning people based off political ideology then it becomes a problem. There comes a point that a public accommodation must be impartial. We do that for brick and mortar we should do it for the digital space and since the thing that matters most online is ideas, those sites should be impartial to political ideologies.
Again, it isn't the only federally mandated cost on the schools. IDEA ( Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), while laudable, puts a high cost on schools. If you are in a smaller district with minimal funds with these kinds of increases on costs are of concern in addition to other revenue sources and costs.
The current average per student cost is $7,552 and the average cost per special education student is an additional $9,369 per student, or $16,921. Yet, in 2004, the federal government is providing local school districts with just under 20 percent of its commitment rather than the 40 percent specified by the law, creating a $10.6 billion shortfall for states and local school districts.
Over the past 10 years, the number of U.S. students enrolled in special education programs has risen 30 percent
If you are a school faced with all these costs and are no longer financially secure, any revenue source must be looked at regardless whether you like the strings attached or not. Directly answering your question, no but when you add in the other federally mandated expenditures for financially struggling schools it becomes more and more like it.
So blatantly lying and making up stuff off the top of your head isn't wrong?
Every president has lied to you. Sorry to break that to you. A smooth talking liar is still a liar even if it sounds good. Obama is the better orator but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't lie to you. He did. Lots of times.
Way to be a sympathizer. I bet you believe everything he says. Smh.
I have been called everything because I don't fall inline with the Trump hate. It was no different on Obamas election/re-election for me. Everyone is trying to convince you of something. Why is this any different?
I don't need to believe everything he says to know there are a lot of people still very bitter over the election. That bitterness makes it difficult for them to see any silver lining or to see the world without a projected failure for any and everything. All critical thinking goes out the window as soon as Trumps name is uttered. It was dumb when it was Obama it is dumb now.
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs. By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure. Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time. That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
Slashdot Mirror
What rights you have shouldn't be limited based on the money you have. You are saying that someone poor that prints a political flyer has more freedom in than a person able to buy commercial space. It is not right to limit an individuals rights based on the money they have.
Also, keep in mind that the more moneyed campaign lost in 2016. Just because you have lots of money does not mean you will win. It helps you, no doubt, but it isn't a guaranteed purchase.
That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.
Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.
explain how spending money is actually "speech" and so impossible for the government to regulate.
If you spend money to air a commercial should you be able to say anything political you want? (let's ignore the FCC and the stupid obscenity rules for now for simplicity) Can you spend your own money to support a candidate or call out another candidate/bill/politician/agency whatever you want? That is functionally the point. Because money allows speech to be aired or allows speech to be said then it must be that the government not limit what political speech is aired even if it costs money. It would be no different than printing out a political paper (very cheap) than buying air space for a commercial (very expensive).
Obviously it causes issues with collaborating with a political campaign because there are other laws that deal with those kind of things. But you as an individual decide to put out a commercial that says "Trump is an orange bozo. Vote against anything he does.". Should the government limit that? If you are not collaborating with any other political campaign and acting purely on your own and spending your own money on a political position you feel strongly about can the government restrict you?
If they can't, and you decide to set up a type of company to take advantage of tax law then you have effectively set up the situation we are in with super PACs. That is effectively the argument and the citizens united decision basically said that the government can't stop you individually from spending your money to air political positions.
Hindsight 20/20 aside, we'll find out when his term is over.
A place where anyone can lead the nation. Sounds more like a good thing than a bad thing even if the "anyone" can be bad. In any case during the campaign Trump (and all his faults) were compared to Clinton (and all her faults) and in a majority of states voters thought the later was worse. What is the the problem ?
I guess funny in that the primaries selected two terrible candidates but at the same time one of the primaries did select an outsider that was hated by that party elite. So, there's that.
Only in Chicago and other cities with the strongest of gun laws.
What if I told you that I was an a.c. ?
Is this like when Trend Micro said that Russia was hacking the French election and oh by the way they "had no proof of a Russian role".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
I think you missed my point. you used the qualifier "especially a woman". That signifies that you look males and females different because that was your special consideration you put on a crime. Your language is reducing women to a weaker gender by stating that a crime done to a women is "especially" more bad than if that crime had been done to a man. IOW, you are a sexist. If you weren't a sexist you wouldn't have made that distinction because there is nothing special about it or anything that would make it "especially" bad. It's bad if done to man or women nothing special to consider for classifying that crime as worse depending on the victim with regards to gender.
Also, you didn't mention physically attacking but "vaguely threatening" you are moving the goal posts because online a persons physical prowess is irrelevant. Your talking about an online issue and conflating the meat space considerations. A paraplegic can make the same "vaguely threatening" remarks and it doesn't make it "especially" bad if those remarks are toward a woman even if women are generally physically weaker. You are saying that women are weaker than men in dealing with "vaguely threatening" remarks. Which makes you a sexist. Your language. Your outlook. Your the sexist.
Why do you feel that women are weaker than men with dealing with vague threats? Do you think that it is rather patronizing to women to say that men can deal with crap online better than women? How are you better than the misogynists that you claim to hate? Doesn't that make you a misogynist? After all, you are indeed bullying women with your language into a weaker class and making them out to be victims that need a strong man like you to protect. I would look in the mirror buddy before you go around condemning others.
Right... tell me more how I think because obviously you can read minds.
I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups. I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.
As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.
Not going to respond to all because I honestly don't care about an a.c.
Your refusal to finish reading what they had to say discredits you, or perhaps even makes you a hypocrite, if you are insistent on other's misrepresentations. All because you got offended at them, and chose to stalk off in a tantrum.
No. I just don't like opinion pieces masqueraded as fact that distort the truth. If an article is willing to bend the truth for one item, why wouldn't they do it for other claims? How many other little truths are bent or broken? I don't know and I would be ill-equipped to find them all if I am trying to learn about a topic or subject. It doesn't matter who they are. If they can't quote/report accurately then I don't care for their analysis because their initial fact gathering has been compromised for whatever reason.
If you're intent is to establish yourself as a poor examiner with a clear bias that is distorting your own representations and perceptions, you have done well to do so. Quite effectively.
How is wanting an accurate reporting of facts me being a poor examiner with a clear bias? I don't understand. If there is something I know that happened (because I saw it or looked into it) and I see anyone misrepresenting that event, why would I care what their analysis was of the event in question?
Sure. But I wouldn't be surprised when enough people get annoyed by federal policy's that make their life difficult and they elect someone to put those policy's to an end.
What is the difference between the OWS and the refuge protest? Hint; guns. The only person that died was one of the activists that resisted arrest. Were they taking away the rights of other citizens?
The Charleston Church Shooting... What does that have to do with protest? Maybe you don't understand between organized groups taking the rights away from other people and one crazy person acting on their bigotry alone.
As for the others, sounds like lots of talk... What is the difference between all of these examples you gave and antifa? One is taking away the rights of others on a regular occurrence. Aside from the loner that was crazy and acted on his bigotry only antifa are acting out their bigotry by taking away the rights of their fellow citizens.
Are you incapable of studying that site on your own? Do you want others [splcenter.org]?
I expect that if someone posts a link that it is not a general search or topic and expect me to figure out their point. If there was a specific post or article or w/e then at least I can draw the connection between their post and their link. The GP's post didn't connect to anything I saw I when I clicked his link. What am I supposed to think?
As far as the SPLcenter link, I stopped reading at: "He kicked off the campaign with a speech vilifying Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers." because it is obvious they are not looking for accuracy but narrative crafting. They had other language to allude to this narrative crafting but that was where I stopped caring about what they say. If they can't get something as simple as that correct then they are not worth my time.
When I or a hundred other someones get in that guys' face to tell him what an asshole he is, and how he should shut the fuck up, that's also our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Yes, but you are treading on thin ice and flirting with mob justice and rule.
especially when who you're vaguely threatening IS A WOMAN
So, you're a sexist? If you believe that men and women are equal then any crimal act against someone is just as deplorable as if it had happened to a member of the opposite sex. However, if you have some kind of conditional requirement that makes the crime "especially" worse that means you think the genders are not equal and any criminal act to a weaker sex is "especially" more bad because society in general protects the weaker members of society. Why do you think women are weaker then men?
Yes, both sides have their extremes. You started with: "cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.". The current batch on the left is anarchists, antifa, and riot. Obviously there is a stark difference as one is participating and advocating for violence.
That reddit is just The_Donald... What am I supposed to look at? I showed you specifically what I mean when I say "antifa" and "anarchists". Do you think someone is extreme for supporting Trump?
Our flavor of anarchists want the government out of our personal lives.
Uh, no I am not talking about the semantic differences of the role/size of government. Wanting a limited government is not the same as wanting NO government. I am talking about the legitimate dictionary definition of anarchist that doesn't want a government or hierarchy.These are the type of anarchists I am talking about. Notice that they struggle with idea of a leader to organize their riots..
Antifa uses violence to achieve their political goals. Literally the definition of terrorism. In that thread they muse about combat training to better beat up people they don't like. If you think these are your traditional liberals, no. If you support these methods then you do not support freedom or liberty. It doesn't matter how you dress it up "punch a nazi" or "bash the fash", antifa uses violence to silence people.
You personally may not have... but I know more than a few Bernie fans who were so disillusioned that they voted for Trump in the end.
During the primaries I honestly could not believe the Clinton supporters and how arrogant they acted. "We don't need you or your vote!" was a common sentiment I saw.
I participated in both primary parties for Ron Paul (2012) and Bernie Sanders (2016) and while the GOP did do some messed up shit that bit them in the ass to ignore the delegates Ron Paul won during 2012, nothing compared to the #BernieBro resentment from the Clinton camp. It was incredible to me that there was such animosity for a different opinion in the same party. For all the faults of the GOP, they do have a fairly diverse range of ideas the party represent while the Democrats wanted to limit what is an acceptable opinion by shaming those that strayed from the party mantra.
So instead you cozy up to anarchist, spawn antifa, and riot?
How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.
Agreed but someone shouldn't be barred or no platform because of their opinions/ideas. Unless there is full booking or no space available (which I doubt honestly) I don't think it would be much an issue.
The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.
I haven't looked but wouldn't be surprised there is a flatearther.com. But not everyone can create a website (that argument doesn't work for other examples [google], it shouldn't work here) and if a lot of the national dialogue happens on one site (say Twitter for example) and that site is banning people based off political ideology then it becomes a problem. There comes a point that a public accommodation must be impartial. We do that for brick and mortar we should do it for the digital space and since the thing that matters most online is ideas, those sites should be impartial to political ideologies.
k.
Again, it isn't the only federally mandated cost on the schools. IDEA ( Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), while laudable, puts a high cost on schools. If you are in a smaller district with minimal funds with these kinds of increases on costs are of concern in addition to other revenue sources and costs.
http://www.nea.org/home/19029....
The current average per student cost is $7,552 and the average cost per special education student is an additional $9,369 per student, or $16,921. Yet, in 2004, the federal government is providing local school districts with just under 20 percent of its commitment rather than the 40 percent specified by the law, creating a $10.6 billion shortfall for states and local school districts.
Over the past 10 years, the number of U.S. students enrolled in special education programs has risen 30 percent
Also, the decline in participation has an effect on the schools revenue. The school has to bear the cost. Since the program is by district and not by school this can cause problems for needier schools in the same district.
If you are a school faced with all these costs and are no longer financially secure, any revenue source must be looked at regardless whether you like the strings attached or not. Directly answering your question, no but when you add in the other federally mandated expenditures for financially struggling schools it becomes more and more like it.
So blatantly lying and making up stuff off the top of your head isn't wrong?
Every president has lied to you. Sorry to break that to you. A smooth talking liar is still a liar even if it sounds good. Obama is the better orator but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't lie to you. He did. Lots of times.
Way to be a sympathizer. I bet you believe everything he says. Smh.
I have been called everything because I don't fall inline with the Trump hate. It was no different on Obamas election/re-election for me. Everyone is trying to convince you of something. Why is this any different?
I don't need to believe everything he says to know there are a lot of people still very bitter over the election. That bitterness makes it difficult for them to see any silver lining or to see the world without a projected failure for any and everything. All critical thinking goes out the window as soon as Trumps name is uttered. It was dumb when it was Obama it is dumb now.
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs. By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure. Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time. That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
If there is a law that is fiduciarily irresponsible that the only way to pay is by receiving federal funds then yes it is.