Another ignorant fox watcher. We've covered many times how the IRS enforcing Tax Law and ensuring that nonprofits file for nonprofit status under the proper section of law is NOT ILLEGAL and NOT A SCANDAL. But hey, dont let the repeated facts and debunkings stop your ignorant roll. The GOP in congress doesnt, and theyve got over 25000 pages of findings and several hearings, that all produced jack squat so far in actual actionable material.
As for the emails.....not surprising. Government computers die all the time. Cause they suck. Old peices of trash. Horrible software bloat too, things required to run in background for security. And government IT's solution nearly always the same: Wipe it and reimage it, or "here, have a new(ish) computer".
with every post you only prove further beyond any doubt that the one living in a fantasy world is you. you know nothing of american ideals, with the possible exception of how they might apply to you and you alone. you know nothing of law, trademark or constitutional (hint: trademarks were for the longest time unconstitutional) you've fallen for the myth of "government is bad by default".
you are ignorant, and sound like the typical tea party tool, who really doesnt understand how we got to where are today, following over 200 years of discreditation of the ideals and beliefs he spouts. all the things these "dont tread on me" tools clamor for, we used to have, long ago. no one liked it. why we changed it.
yes, by all means the government should endorse, as a matter of course, racist ethnic slurs by granting an econimic entity sole and exclusive right to profit from said racist ethnic slur. its the American Way.
It's not like one of hte governments chief jobs is to fight against discrimination and ensure that the mantra of "all men are created equal in the eyes of the law/government" actually exists in our country or anything.
Wrong. It was originally just a word of description. "He has red skin." No connotations, positive or negative. It accumulated a negative connotation over time, to the point it is a racist ethnic slur. It has NEVER had a positive one, even when used to refer to NA's in "noble savage" style of literature.
Ah yes. I knew it couldnt be long until the psuedologic (ie, BS) of the intolerance of intolerance crowd showed up. You said live and let live, but it still amounts to the same old "tolerance requires you to tolerate my intolerance" argument.
So the governemnt should endorse racist ethnic slurs by granting exclusive economic rights?
Yes, choosing to not endorse racist slurs by granting trademarks involving them is a moral stance. And yes, for our government, it IS absolutely necessary.
Just like it was absolutely necessary to outlaw slavery, ensure the vote, ensure equal application of civil rights, force Southern states to end segregation, and host of other issues.
You're simply trying to cloak your bigoted prejudices in the concepts of government restraint and noninvolvement. Kind of the the "literacy tests" of old that theoretically applied to everyone....but really only affected a specific minority. ("oh, it mostly affects black folks? what a coinkydink.") Hidden racism is still racism.
and as the man said: BY DEFINTION a trademark is in itself inherently an infringement of free speech. The revoking of a trademark is BY DEFINITION not an infringement of free speech, but a restoration of free speech.
Example: You get a trademark. You still have exclusive right (exclusive free speech) to use a word. Your free speech = normal, not infringed. Everyone else = can no longer use word econoically, very much infringed
Your trademark is revoked. Your free speech = still normal, not infringed. Simply no longer exclusive. Everyone else = can once again use word econoically. no longer infringed.
oh plz. stop being an idiot. as a major sports franchise rolling in money, the only thing that will harm them economically is if people stop attending their games and buying their merchandise because they dont like the use of a racist slur as a name.
removing the trademark absolteuly does NOT harm them. they can still call themselves the Redskins all they want. they can just no longer depend on the federal government to block anyone else from using or profiting from the name.
You have no right to a trademark. A trademark is a special prividlige, a special right to profit off a name, word, image or slogan granted by the federal government. It's backed by the Government who then disallows anyone else to profit from that trademark. But that doesn't mean they have to grant you the trademark. It's effectively also an endorsment of your company and that trademark.
In the case of the Redskins, that means it amounts to the Federal Government of hte United States, and therefore by extention the American People, endoring the use of an ethnic slur as a trademark. Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
That's why it's been revoked. But all that means is they no longer have exclusive right to use the word, images, etc, and have it be enforcable by the government. They can still use it all they want. This does not hinder their usage in any way.
Bull manure. Your post is bull manure, and the guy that modded you +5 is an idiot. They aren't talking points, its very simple legal theory that even you should be capable of grapsing if you think long enough.
You have no right to a trademark. A trademark is a special prividlige, a special right to profit off a name, word, image or slogan granted by the federal government. It's backed by the Government who then disallows anyone else to profit from that trademark. But that doesn't mean they have to grant you the trademark. It's effectively also an endorsment of your company and that trademark.
In the case of the Redskins, that means it amounts to the Federal Government of hte United States, and therefore by extention the American People, endoring the use of an ethnic slur as a trademark. Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
That's why it's been revoked. But all that means is they no longer have exclusive right to use the word, images, etc, and have it be enforcable by the government. They can still use it all they want. This does not hinder their usage in any way.
So again: you're the fool using ignorant talking points. Not the GP.
Braves not really. Denotes a role, or position, and doesn't really have any negative associations. Now the caricature that the team uses....that's another issue.
it's also impossible to "spoil" an OP+GR election system i should add since everyone is voting in every election. unlike an OP combined with a regular General Election, or Vermont's system where you choose which primary you want to vote in.
best way to fix campaign contributions: Eliminate them., including self-financing of rich candidates.
Go to a strict publicly financed campaign system, making it impossible to win simply based on who spent the most and bought the most airtime. Coincidently, such a system dovetails PERFECTLY with an Open Primary+General Runoff system.
---
Also, the best fix for politcal parties is 1) to either eliminate them, or 2) severaly weaken them by fostering the creation of additional parties. 1 is impractical, byt 2 can be potentially accomplished by OP+GR. Democracy shouldnt be about which party is in power. Political representation and power should based on the voters wishes, not the party leadership. OP+GR leads to better representation of the actual voters in an area and less beholdeness to The Party. The very idea of voting along Party Lines needs to die. My representative should be voting in MY interests, not the Party's; if they align, so be it....but if they don't his vote should reflect that.
I frequently deride other/.'ers for telling (usually wrongly) Libertarians what they believe, generally because they misrepresent what libertarianism actually believe, or they confuse and conflate the different (and in some ways polar opposite) "flavors" of libertarianism (left libertarian, anarchic libertarian, right libertarian, etc).
But I've also noticed in the broader public, that "Libertarian" amongst those I know who use the word has come to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. And frequenctly that just the simple concept that they want to label themselves as something other than a generic conservative or Republican, even though that's exactly what they are. Maybe it's just because of one issue, such as a gay rights, that isnt acceptible in the largery Republican/Tea Party (though many Tea Party people call themselves libertarians), that they want to use the different label.
But it's certainly muddied the defintion and usage of the word.
Closed Primaries make snse if all you care about is the private organization choosing its internally most popular candidate. But they make no sense in terms of hte larger democratic political process, because they undermine and reduce the political power and representation of the total voter base in an area. The politician is beholden to his party, and eventually this means The Party and not his actual voters.
That's where the combination of an Open Primary + General Election Runoff comes in. The primary's purpose is to select the most broadly appealing candidates across the totality of voters in an area/district regardless of party, who then compete in the Runoff. This increases local voter power and representation (particularly of the area's political minority who is generally totally without representation) in the political process, and reduces Party power/allegiance/partisanship where candidates are more beholden to party leadership than their own voters.
It's better for the democratic process....and maybe the first step to putting a stake in the heart of the concept Political Parties...or at least the first step in ending the 2-party stalemate and allowing a more diverse party landscape (more than just two parties) to come about.
it also reduces Party Power by increasing the size and demographic of the base of constituents the politician needs to keep happy. it also givers more power and representation to the political minority in an area. and reducing party power and who the politician is beholden to (his voters rather than The Party) and is a Very Good Thing.
the state sponsored primary is a good idea if its organizaed as a single Open Primary in which ALL potential candidates in the state must run if they want to be on the ballot in the general election. This effectively turns the general election into a runoff between the top two or three candidates from the Open Primary.
this sort of primary system has a very moderating effect on politicians and reduces partisanism, as they must appeal to larger base. IE, while they still may not appeal to their polar opposites, they at least cant completely ignore the voters in the middle ground. Plus, it somewhat reduces the effect of Blues in a red state (or vice versa) being essentially unrepresented, increasing their political power and representation somewhat (depends on local demographics of course, 90/10 splits may not be affected much but say 55/45 splits would). its overall a Good Thing (tm).
State sponsored Party Primaries (or closed primaries) are not good. State shouldnt do it, and the Parties should spend their own money organizing them. But party based primaries in general, while conceptually perfectly logical as a the private function of a private organization choosing its candidate, tend to be a "Bad Thing" (tm) in terms of democracy as a whole, because it leeds much more partisan or extreme candidates, as the party nominees over time trend to the extremes (case in point: Tea Party). There's very little pressure to appeal to the middle ground, their bases are much smaller and more partisan, and the middle ground voters are left picking between two candidates who make often little effort to appeal to them. And it leads directly to outnumbered voters (such as democrats in oklahoma) being essentially totally unrepresented in the political process. And the idea and notion of "safe seats" only exacerbates this partisanship as well.
So. Short version: to get less partisanship, and more broudly appealing, more moderate candidates, who represent a larger proportion of their constituents you need to enact a the combination of an Open Primary + General Election Runoff. The primary's purpose is to select the most broadly appealing candidates, regardless of party, who then compete in the Runoff. This increases local voter power and representation in the political process, and reduces Party power and partisanship where candidates are more beholden to party leadership than their own voters.
It's a Very Good Thing (tm) and completely in line with the ideals of a representative democracy.
Because technically a primary isn't a general election open to the public. It's generally considered a private function of a private group, namely that particular party, much like a union vote or other clubhouse/organization. its a private election so the party can choose its candidate to present to the general public. that's why blanket/open parties were shutdown by the courts before.
some states have once again brought the idea back. and i actually support the idea, because it's historical tendency is to produce more moderate candidates because they can't simply appeal to the loudest voices in their own party. but it is a bit hard to argue against the idea that it is a private function.
People doing things that benefit themselves is the very definition
No. No it's not. The definition of the word capitalism is "an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners"
Slashdot Mirror
Another ignorant fox watcher. We've covered many times how the IRS enforcing Tax Law and ensuring that nonprofits file for nonprofit status under the proper section of law is NOT ILLEGAL and NOT A SCANDAL. But hey, dont let the repeated facts and debunkings stop your ignorant roll. The GOP in congress doesnt, and theyve got over 25000 pages of findings and several hearings, that all produced jack squat so far in actual actionable material.
As for the emails.....not surprising. Government computers die all the time. Cause they suck. Old peices of trash. Horrible software bloat too, things required to run in background for security. And government IT's solution nearly always the same: Wipe it and reimage it, or "here, have a new(ish) computer".
with every post you only prove further beyond any doubt that the one living in a fantasy world is you.
you know nothing of american ideals, with the possible exception of how they might apply to you and you alone.
you know nothing of law, trademark or constitutional (hint: trademarks were for the longest time unconstitutional)
you've fallen for the myth of "government is bad by default".
you are ignorant, and sound like the typical tea party tool, who really doesnt understand how we got to where are today, following over 200 years of discreditation of the ideals and beliefs he spouts. all the things these "dont tread on me" tools clamor for, we used to have, long ago. no one liked it. why we changed it.
yes, by all means the government should endorse, as a matter of course, racist ethnic slurs by granting an econimic entity sole and exclusive right to profit from said racist ethnic slur. its the American Way.
It's not like one of hte governments chief jobs is to fight against discrimination and ensure that the mantra of "all men are created equal in the eyes of the law/government" actually exists in our country or anything.
Stop modding people who dont understand the first amendment and trademark law "insightful"
Wrong.
It was originally just a word of description.
"He has red skin."
No connotations, positive or negative.
It accumulated a negative connotation over time, to the point it is a racist ethnic slur.
It has NEVER had a positive one, even when used to refer to NA's in "noble savage" style of literature.
Ah yes.
I knew it couldnt be long until the psuedologic (ie, BS) of the intolerance of intolerance crowd showed up.
You said live and let live, but it still amounts to the same old "tolerance requires you to tolerate my intolerance" argument.
So the governemnt should endorse racist ethnic slurs by granting exclusive economic rights?
Yes, choosing to not endorse racist slurs by granting trademarks involving them is a moral stance.
And yes, for our government, it IS absolutely necessary.
Just like it was absolutely necessary to outlaw slavery, ensure the vote, ensure equal application of civil rights, force Southern states to end segregation, and host of other issues.
You're simply trying to cloak your bigoted prejudices in the concepts of government restraint and noninvolvement.
Kind of the the "literacy tests" of old that theoretically applied to everyone....but really only affected a specific minority.
("oh, it mostly affects black folks? what a coinkydink.")
Hidden racism is still racism.
and as the man said: BY DEFINTION a trademark is in itself inherently an infringement of free speech.
The revoking of a trademark is BY DEFINITION not an infringement of free speech, but a restoration of free speech.
Example:
You get a trademark. You still have exclusive right (exclusive free speech) to use a word.
Your free speech = normal, not infringed.
Everyone else = can no longer use word econoically, very much infringed
Your trademark is revoked.
Your free speech = still normal, not infringed. Simply no longer exclusive.
Everyone else = can once again use word econoically. no longer infringed.
oh plz. stop being an idiot.
as a major sports franchise rolling in money, the only thing that will harm them economically is if people stop attending their games and buying their merchandise because they dont like the use of a racist slur as a name.
removing the trademark absolteuly does NOT harm them.
they can still call themselves the Redskins all they want.
they can just no longer depend on the federal government to block anyone else from using or profiting from the name.
You have no right to a trademark.
A trademark is a special prividlige, a special right to profit off a name, word, image or slogan granted by the federal government.
It's backed by the Government who then disallows anyone else to profit from that trademark.
But that doesn't mean they have to grant you the trademark.
It's effectively also an endorsment of your company and that trademark.
In the case of the Redskins, that means it amounts to the Federal Government of hte United States, and therefore by extention the American People, endoring the use of an ethnic slur as a trademark. Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
That's why it's been revoked.
But all that means is they no longer have exclusive right to use the word, images, etc, and have it be enforcable by the government.
They can still use it all they want. This does not hinder their usage in any way.
Bull manure.
Your post is bull manure, and the guy that modded you +5 is an idiot.
They aren't talking points, its very simple legal theory that even you should be capable of grapsing if you think long enough.
You have no right to a trademark.
A trademark is a special prividlige, a special right to profit off a name, word, image or slogan granted by the federal government.
It's backed by the Government who then disallows anyone else to profit from that trademark.
But that doesn't mean they have to grant you the trademark.
It's effectively also an endorsment of your company and that trademark.
In the case of the Redskins, that means it amounts to the Federal Government of hte United States, and therefore by extention the American People, endoring the use of an ethnic slur as a trademark. Surely you can see why granting a racist and discriminatory word special privilidges should be distasteful to the Federal Governement and American People as a whole?
That's why it's been revoked.
But all that means is they no longer have exclusive right to use the word, images, etc, and have it be enforcable by the government.
They can still use it all they want. This does not hinder their usage in any way.
So again: you're the fool using ignorant talking points. Not the GP.
who modded this troll insightful?
Braves not really. Denotes a role, or position, and doesn't really have any negative associations.
Now the caricature that the team uses....that's another issue.
Blackhawks is the name of a tribe, not a ethnic slur.
DOF and motion blur. both annoying.
it's also impossible to "spoil" an OP+GR election system i should add since everyone is voting in every election. unlike an OP combined with a regular General Election, or Vermont's system where you choose which primary you want to vote in.
best way to fix campaign contributions: Eliminate them., including self-financing of rich candidates.
Go to a strict publicly financed campaign system, making it impossible to win simply based on who spent the most and bought the most airtime.
Coincidently, such a system dovetails PERFECTLY with an Open Primary+General Runoff system.
---
Also, the best fix for politcal parties is 1) to either eliminate them, or 2) severaly weaken them by fostering the creation of additional parties. 1 is impractical, byt 2 can be potentially accomplished by OP+GR. Democracy shouldnt be about which party is in power. Political representation and power should based on the voters wishes, not the party leadership. OP+GR leads to better representation of the actual voters in an area and less beholdeness to The Party. The very idea of voting along Party Lines needs to die. My representative should be voting in MY interests, not the Party's; if they align, so be it....but if they don't his vote should reflect that.
I frequently deride other /.'ers for telling (usually wrongly) Libertarians what they believe, generally because they misrepresent what libertarianism actually believe, or they confuse and conflate the different (and in some ways polar opposite) "flavors" of libertarianism (left libertarian, anarchic libertarian, right libertarian, etc).
But I've also noticed in the broader public, that "Libertarian" amongst those I know who use the word has come to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. And frequenctly that just the simple concept that they want to label themselves as something other than a generic conservative or Republican, even though that's exactly what they are. Maybe it's just because of one issue, such as a gay rights, that isnt acceptible in the largery Republican/Tea Party (though many Tea Party people call themselves libertarians), that they want to use the different label.
But it's certainly muddied the defintion and usage of the word.
Closed Primaries make snse if all you care about is the private organization choosing its internally most popular candidate.
But they make no sense in terms of hte larger democratic political process, because they undermine and reduce the political power and representation of the total voter base in an area. The politician is beholden to his party, and eventually this means The Party and not his actual voters.
That's where the combination of an Open Primary + General Election Runoff comes in. The primary's purpose is to select the most broadly appealing candidates across the totality of voters in an area/district regardless of party, who then compete in the Runoff. This increases local voter power and representation (particularly of the area's political minority who is generally totally without representation) in the political process, and reduces Party power/allegiance/partisanship where candidates are more beholden to party leadership than their own voters.
It's better for the democratic process....and maybe the first step to putting a stake in the heart of the concept Political Parties...or at least the first step in ending the 2-party stalemate and allowing a more diverse party landscape (more than just two parties) to come about.
it also reduces Party Power by increasing the size and demographic of the base of constituents the politician needs to keep happy. it also givers more power and representation to the political minority in an area. and reducing party power and who the politician is beholden to (his voters rather than The Party) and is a Very Good Thing.
the state sponsored primary is a good idea if its organizaed as a single Open Primary in which ALL potential candidates in the state must run if they want to be on the ballot in the general election. This effectively turns the general election into a runoff between the top two or three candidates from the Open Primary.
this sort of primary system has a very moderating effect on politicians and reduces partisanism, as they must appeal to larger base. IE, while they still may not appeal to their polar opposites, they at least cant completely ignore the voters in the middle ground. Plus, it somewhat reduces the effect of Blues in a red state (or vice versa) being essentially unrepresented, increasing their political power and representation somewhat (depends on local demographics of course, 90/10 splits may not be affected much but say 55/45 splits would). its overall a Good Thing (tm).
State sponsored Party Primaries (or closed primaries) are not good. State shouldnt do it, and the Parties should spend their own money organizing them. But party based primaries in general, while conceptually perfectly logical as a the private function of a private organization choosing its candidate, tend to be a "Bad Thing" (tm) in terms of democracy as a whole, because it leeds much more partisan or extreme candidates, as the party nominees over time trend to the extremes (case in point: Tea Party). There's very little pressure to appeal to the middle ground, their bases are much smaller and more partisan, and the middle ground voters are left picking between two candidates who make often little effort to appeal to them. And it leads directly to outnumbered voters (such as democrats in oklahoma) being essentially totally unrepresented in the political process. And the idea and notion of "safe seats" only exacerbates this partisanship as well.
So. Short version: to get less partisanship, and more broudly appealing, more moderate candidates, who represent a larger proportion of their constituents you need to enact a the combination of an Open Primary + General Election Runoff. The primary's purpose is to select the most broadly appealing candidates, regardless of party, who then compete in the Runoff. This increases local voter power and representation in the political process, and reduces Party power and partisanship where candidates are more beholden to party leadership than their own voters.
It's a Very Good Thing (tm) and completely in line with the ideals of a representative democracy.
Because technically a primary isn't a general election open to the public. It's generally considered a private function of a private group, namely that particular party, much like a union vote or other clubhouse/organization. its a private election so the party can choose its candidate to present to the general public. that's why blanket/open parties were shutdown by the courts before.
some states have once again brought the idea back. and i actually support the idea, because it's historical tendency is to produce more moderate candidates because they can't simply appeal to the loudest voices in their own party. but it is a bit hard to argue against the idea that it is a private function.
Yes he did.
He very clearly did.
People doing things that benefit themselves is the very definition
No.
No it's not.
The definition of the word capitalism is "an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners"
im not sure you actually understand the defintion of the words "socialism" or "capitalism"