A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandateskilling people for certain speech...
This is why youre racist. - Its not imcompatible, as shown by the millions of peacefully coexisting Muslims already here and in Europe.
- Not to mention that not every Muslim majority nation is Suadi Arabia. There are 49 Muslim majority countries. To paint all of them by the example of SA is the definition of bigotry, as even within the Muslim world, restrictive nations like SA are the exception and not the norm, even though its the example people like like to trot out as the example of "how muslims are".
-BTW, using a couple cherry picked unrepresentative examples to paint an entire culture wrongly, is the definition of of bigotry.
-If you truly believed that you would ceaselessly mock Christiantity as well, yet you dont. You cherry pick from their religious book while ignoring any other passage in it that might contract the passage youve chosen. Again: the defintion of bigotry.
This rant is likely wasted on an AC. But it needs said just the same.
Unlike you've I've met and talked to Muslims, like a civilized reasonable person. Even did a stint in Afghanistan, and got to know about a dozen and a half individuals fairly well.
At the end of the day the overwhleming majority of people are just people, with the same wants needs and desires as everyone else: enough food to eat, clean clothes to wear, a roof over their head at night, and the hope of a better tommorow for their children. They have no more desire to spread their race or culture across the globe than most people do, and definitely less than many Americans do.
"Liberty, freedom and just for all" carries no disclaimers or exclusions for me. And the biggest threat to those ideals are extremists, fanatics who hate the Other due to their religion, politics, skin color, or any other percieved difference.
Extremists like the individuals in Paris the other day. And extemists like you within our own country.
I will not tolerate either variety, for as the man said, all it takes for evil to flourish in this world is for good men to do nothing.
So just preemptively proclaim them all guilty, and then kill everyone? Like solving racism by making everyone the same color....violently.
And how is that different exactly from the terrorists and the actions they advocate? Answer: It's not; Its pretty much exactly what the terrorists and extremists say in their justifications. And it just leads to a cycle of violence.
Maybe you want to live a world of constant recriminations based on a shared identity rather than actual guilt or commission of a crime.
Personally I'd rather live in a civlized world, where those guilty of this atrocity are brought to trial and handled by rule of law, while those of us who aren't extremists get to live in relatively peaceful coexistence inspite of our differences.
Yes you can. You can argue with pretty much everything Norquist says, because he is an idiot who thinks the world would be a better place if there were no government.
There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.
Again: this right here is the source of your ignorance. You simply do not know what you are talking about. There are real and concreate reasons for the regulation of taxis.
Your ignorance of that history is not a reason to dismantle those regulations. But you can try if you want...you'll simply learn first hand why they existed in the first place. Which is ultimately the end consequence of libertarianism: if it actually succeeds and is implemented, it will necessarily be abandoned as its followers slowly learn firsthand why we did things the way we did, a lesson they could have avoided if they had simply learned some history. When we talk about those who dont learn history being doomed to repeat it, libertarians are a prime example.
It is a protection racket, but you are wrong about who is being protected. Its about protecting the consumer.
Other than fixed-route/fixed fare taxis, taxi fares are typically based on milage. But how do you know you actually traveled the distance the meter claimed you did? Because there is a requirement that the meter be calibrated to ensure its accuracy for the protection of the customer. Same as the scale inthe produce or meat departments of your grocery store must be calibrated for similar reasons.
And yes, you are arguing for fuedalism. Its what liberrtarianism ultimately boils down to: all the power rests in the hands of those best able to sieze, which is typically the wealthiest people. Its anarchy for the rich. Bonus: its libertarianism that actually best serves to create actual protection rackets for monopolies.
a routing policy that protects and strengthens a competitive free market among internet based services and companies.
im well aware of what NN is.
and one aspect of its implications is that big fish cant pay for preferential treatment or an unfair advantage, allowing upstart "internet startups" a fair shot as taking on goliath. the task of a startup taking on an existing leviathan is hard enough on a level playing field, just by virtue of being a tiny nobody going against a big somebody, but its everyones interests to preevnt Goliath from stopping David from even born. And that is one aspect and implication of a sound NN policy.
Cable is a dying business model. The idea, and the neccessity, of being provided 100, or 100, or 1000, predefined channels with a set schedule is disappearing. The Hulus and Netflixes and other on demand services are the way forward.
Hulu and Netflix have essentially taken the On Demand concept and maybe it more widely available, with a bigger content library and easier access via the internet. (In fact On Demand services, the update to the old Pay Per View which was still ona schedule, were basically an early version of streaming on demand, just without internet)
My only worry or concern with the streaming model is that to access all of the content you want to watch, maybe require multiple services. IE, show X is on Netflix, but movie Y is on Hulu. Or that ISPs/Cable Co partnerships will restrict certain streaming services (or websites period) to certain ISPs, which is markedly related to the concern that potentially they turning all of the internet into a streaming content walled garden where what internet you can access is determined by your ISP. (But hey, that's why NN is important, to prevent such things).
Personally I feel that NN doesnt go far enough in that regard, as I flat out dont trust the power of companies like Comcast, and feel that ISPs/telcos shouldnt have any control or ownership or financial stake in any content provider, be it traditional TV channel or streaming service or otherwise. IE, Comcast currently owns a chunk of the NBC family including Hulu, and I would prefer that they didnt. Such conglomeration is ripe for abuse.
No they are not and you are obviously completely ignorant of all actual legal opinions in this area.
Few rights are completely absolute, particuarly where there is a danger to others or soicety. A gun exists for one purpose only: to kill or present the threat of it.
As such it is not unreasonable to demand that persons be capable of using it safely, be responsible in nature, and not be likely to use it to shoot up a school.
A blind man sued for his right to be issued a gun permit....he can't see what he's shooting at, but he gets to have a gun. A man with a history of mental illness, including violent rages, sued for the right to own a gun...precisely the kind of person who should never have one.
So no. you are an idiot. No. You are a complete fool as you show everytime you open your mouth.
Is it the guns? No. It's not. Having used to live there, the reason Kennesaw's crime rate is low is not its guns.
Rather it's because it's because its almost completely homogenously white middle/upper class folks who mostly think and believe the same things (and they work hard to keep it that way...).
Or broken down it's: a) affluent b) small c) every one is largely the same c) has an effective, well trained, well equipped, and well staffed police department
The single biggest protection against state power has always been and will always be the fact that the ranks of the military are comprised of our fellow citizens. It is when they become the Other, from Somewhere Else, and/or view the Public as the Other, that they become dangerous.
If more guns makes people safer and reduces crime, why is America not the safest country on the planet with the lowest crime rate? Why is it that instead we see the exact opposite, that Amercia has the highest crime rate of all western nations, where the majority of those other nations have far stricter gun control than the US?
Sorry but no. The theory that more guns = less crime is a pile of manure disproven by simple observation.
Also, the notion that "bad people will always have guns because they ignore laws" is not logically valid, and links two seperate concepts while ignoring the inherent assumptions required to link them. Bad people may ignore laws, but that has little to do with their ability to obtain firearms. Their ability to obtain fireams depends on the efficacy of efforts to disrupt their illicit supply chains.
Also please note, the number of "bad guys with guns" stopped by a random "good guy with a gun" citizen in all of the past decade and a half of mass shootings is 0. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. None. Not a one. They were all stopped by either police, or themselves via suicide.
the ability of the 99% to use a product like the concorde is irrelevent and has no bearing on its feasibility. the concorde was never a mass market product. it was always, from the begining, a niche product, catering to the exclusive set in a time before they all had private planes. the entire aircraft was first class+, and its clientele dont make financial decisions regarding air travel on teh same basis that we do. the basic premise of his post was that judging the concode's market value based on its utilization by the masses is a mistake, as that was never its customer base. with only 30ish aircraft, and high ticket costs, the planes still had little trouble filling seats.
its like declaring a mega yacht manufacturing business unsustainable because the masses can't buy them.
the biggest threat to the concorde's ability to sell seats was the ever growing capital wealth of the world's rich, with more and more of them buying private planes, which have other notable advantages to the prestige set even if they dont fly quite as fast. the expansion of both private ownership and the executive transportation (ie, rich charters) in the past decade or two was enormous.
It's a website that links to actual peer reviewed scientific papers that accurately reflect the sum knowledge of the science involved and accurately reports what is in those papers, as well as laying the science in a clear and accurate fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up.
Mi posts almost nothing but racist/sexist filth that fell out the southend of a northbound mule, which is likely his own origin as well.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
This is why youre racist.
- Its not imcompatible, as shown by the millions of peacefully coexisting Muslims already here and in Europe.
- Not to mention that not every Muslim majority nation is Suadi Arabia. There are 49 Muslim majority countries. To paint all of them by the example of SA is the definition of bigotry, as even within the Muslim world, restrictive nations like SA are the exception and not the norm, even though its the example people like like to trot out as the example of "how muslims are".
-BTW, using a couple cherry picked unrepresentative examples to paint an entire culture wrongly, is the definition of of bigotry.
-If you truly believed that you would ceaselessly mock Christiantity as well, yet you dont. You cherry pick from their religious book while ignoring any other passage in it that might contract the passage youve chosen. Again: the defintion of bigotry.
actually immigration has decreased. in fact, net immigration the last couple years across the mexican border has been negative.
This rant is likely wasted on an AC. But it needs said just the same.
Unlike you've I've met and talked to Muslims, like a civilized reasonable person.
Even did a stint in Afghanistan, and got to know about a dozen and a half individuals fairly well.
At the end of the day the overwhleming majority of people are just people, with the same wants needs and desires as everyone else: enough food to eat, clean clothes to wear, a roof over their head at night, and the hope of a better tommorow for their children. They have no more desire to spread their race or culture across the globe than most people do, and definitely less than many Americans do.
"Liberty, freedom and just for all" carries no disclaimers or exclusions for me. And the biggest threat to those ideals are extremists,
fanatics who hate the Other due to their religion, politics, skin color, or any other percieved difference.
Extremists like the individuals in Paris the other day.
And extemists like you within our own country.
I will not tolerate either variety, for as the man said, all it takes for evil to flourish in this world is for good men to do nothing.
I refuse to do nothing.
So are you the OP crawled out from under your rock?
Your postulation is racist BS.
Pure and simple.
There is no other way to describe it.
You are disgusting human being and you should be ashamed.
Really? I can only conclude you've never seen Fox news, or heard certain Americans, including high profile politicians, speak.
who modded up this racist garbage?
says the most visible and well known bigot and racist on this site, one of the few who doesnt hide behind AC when spewing his filth.
So just preemptively proclaim them all guilty, and then kill everyone?
Like solving racism by making everyone the same color....violently.
And how is that different exactly from the terrorists and the actions they advocate?
Answer: It's not; Its pretty much exactly what the terrorists and extremists say in their justifications.
And it just leads to a cycle of violence.
Maybe you want to live a world of constant recriminations based on a shared identity rather than actual guilt or commission of a crime.
Personally I'd rather live in a civlized world, where those guilty of this atrocity are brought to trial and handled by rule of law, while those of us who aren't extremists get to live in relatively peaceful coexistence inspite of our differences.
Likelihood of entrenched corporations creating said level playing voluntariliy? Nil.
Hence the need for regulation to create it.
Yes you can. You can argue with pretty much everything Norquist says, because he is an idiot who thinks the world would be a better place if there were no government.
There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.
Again: this right here is the source of your ignorance.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
There are real and concreate reasons for the regulation of taxis.
Your ignorance of that history is not a reason to dismantle those regulations.
But you can try if you want...you'll simply learn first hand why they existed in the first place.
Which is ultimately the end consequence of libertarianism: if it actually succeeds and is implemented, it will necessarily be abandoned as its followers slowly learn firsthand why we did things the way we did, a lesson they could have avoided if they had simply learned some history. When we talk about those who dont learn history being doomed to repeat it, libertarians are a prime example.
It is a protection racket, but you are wrong about who is being protected.
Its about protecting the consumer.
Other than fixed-route/fixed fare taxis, taxi fares are typically based on milage.
But how do you know you actually traveled the distance the meter claimed you did?
Because there is a requirement that the meter be calibrated to ensure its accuracy for the protection of the customer.
Same as the scale inthe produce or meat departments of your grocery store must be calibrated for similar reasons.
And yes, you are arguing for fuedalism. Its what liberrtarianism ultimately boils down to: all the power rests in the hands of those best able to sieze, which is typically the wealthiest people. Its anarchy for the rich. Bonus: its libertarianism that actually best serves to create actual protection rackets for monopolies.
please learn the history of taxis and why it was deemed needful to create those rules in the first place.
really, its not that hard a concept to grasp why NN helps free market ideals.
a routing policy that protects and strengthens a competitive free market among internet based services and companies.
im well aware of what NN is.
and one aspect of its implications is that big fish cant pay for preferential treatment or an unfair advantage, allowing upstart "internet startups" a fair shot as taking on goliath. the task of a startup taking on an existing leviathan is hard enough on a level playing field, just by virtue of being a tiny nobody going against a big somebody, but its everyones interests to preevnt Goliath from stopping David from even born. And that is one aspect and implication of a sound NN policy.
Cable is a dying business model.
The idea, and the neccessity, of being provided 100, or 100, or 1000, predefined channels with a set schedule is disappearing.
The Hulus and Netflixes and other on demand services are the way forward.
Hulu and Netflix have essentially taken the On Demand concept and maybe it more widely available, with a bigger content library and easier access via the internet. (In fact On Demand services, the update to the old Pay Per View which was still ona schedule, were basically an early version of streaming on demand, just without internet)
My only worry or concern with the streaming model is that to access all of the content you want to watch, maybe require multiple services.
IE, show X is on Netflix, but movie Y is on Hulu.
Or that ISPs/Cable Co partnerships will restrict certain streaming services (or websites period) to certain ISPs, which is markedly related to the concern that potentially they turning all of the internet into a streaming content walled garden where what internet you can access is determined by your ISP. (But hey, that's why NN is important, to prevent such things).
Personally I feel that NN doesnt go far enough in that regard, as I flat out dont trust the power of companies like Comcast, and feel that ISPs/telcos shouldnt have any control or ownership or financial stake in any content provider, be it traditional TV channel or streaming service or otherwise. IE, Comcast currently owns a chunk of the NBC family including Hulu, and I would prefer that they didnt. Such conglomeration is ripe for abuse.
Oddly enough, Net Neutrality is about protecting and strengthening the free market such that it remains free and competitive.
No they are not and you are obviously completely ignorant of all actual legal opinions in this area.
Few rights are completely absolute, particuarly where there is a danger to others or soicety.
A gun exists for one purpose only: to kill or present the threat of it.
As such it is not unreasonable to demand that persons be capable of using it safely, be responsible in nature, and not be likely to use it to shoot up a school.
A blind man sued for his right to be issued a gun permit....he can't see what he's shooting at, but he gets to have a gun.
A man with a history of mental illness, including violent rages, sued for the right to own a gun...precisely the kind of person who should never have one.
So no. you are an idiot.
No. You are a complete fool as you show everytime you open your mouth.
Is it the guns? No. It's not.
Having used to live there, the reason Kennesaw's crime rate is low is not its guns.
Rather it's because it's because its almost completely homogenously white middle/upper class folks who mostly think and believe the same things (and they work hard to keep it that way ...).
Or broken down it's:
a) affluent
b) small
c) every one is largely the same
c) has an effective, well trained, well equipped, and well staffed police department
The single biggest protection against state power has always been and will always be the fact that the ranks of the military are comprised of our fellow citizens. It is when they become the Other, from Somewhere Else, and/or view the Public as the Other, that they become dangerous.
If more guns makes people safer and reduces crime, why is America not the safest country on the planet with the lowest crime rate?
Why is it that instead we see the exact opposite, that Amercia has the highest crime rate of all western nations, where the majority of those other nations have far stricter gun control than the US?
Sorry but no. The theory that more guns = less crime is a pile of manure disproven by simple observation.
Also, the notion that "bad people will always have guns because they ignore laws" is not logically valid, and links two seperate concepts while ignoring the inherent assumptions required to link them. Bad people may ignore laws, but that has little to do with their ability to obtain firearms. Their ability to obtain fireams depends on the efficacy of efforts to disrupt their illicit supply chains.
Also please note, the number of "bad guys with guns" stopped by a random "good guy with a gun" citizen in all of the past decade and a half of mass shootings is 0.
Zero.
Zilch.
Zip.
Nada.
None.
Not a one.
They were all stopped by either police, or themselves via suicide.
the ability of the 99% to use a product like the concorde is irrelevent and has no bearing on its feasibility.
the concorde was never a mass market product.
it was always, from the begining, a niche product, catering to the exclusive set in a time before they all had private planes.
the entire aircraft was first class+, and its clientele dont make financial decisions regarding air travel on teh same basis that we do.
the basic premise of his post was that judging the concode's market value based on its utilization by the masses is a mistake, as that was never its customer base.
with only 30ish aircraft, and high ticket costs, the planes still had little trouble filling seats.
its like declaring a mega yacht manufacturing business unsustainable because the masses can't buy them.
the biggest threat to the concorde's ability to sell seats was the ever growing capital wealth of the world's rich, with more and more of them buying private planes, which have other notable advantages to the prestige set even if they dont fly quite as fast. the expansion of both private ownership and the executive transportation (ie, rich charters) in the past decade or two was enormous.
pointing out the constitutional authority and reasons for delegation to independent agencies is not flamebait.
stupid mod system.
It's a website that links to actual peer reviewed scientific papers that accurately reflect the sum knowledge of the science involved and accurately reports what is in those papers, as well as laying the science in a clear and accurate fashion.
So yes, I'd say that makes it pretty reliable.