Not really that specific. For example go hold a rally in the rotunda of your state capitol building, no problem. Now go do it at midnight. There are even public parks where you cannot be after hours. Or classrooms in state schools. Even though it's publicly owned, it's not a public forum and you can legally be barred from using it for any purpose.
There is zero need for your elaborate 9th + 14th + human rights commission theory. No part of the US Constitution obligates the government to provide anyone with a platform to speak or the means to listen.
Time, place, and manner. Long established restrictions on speech in public forums.
Also the AC who said you cannot yell fire in a crowded room is wrong. You can be restricted from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example. If there is a fire you are certainly allowed to do so.
Mitt & Ann have five sons. No idea where your plus four comes from.
I believe that the 80% is of federal income tax returns filed. If you are going to be comparing tax rates then you need to include your deductions. But assuming that you are including FICA and not including your employer's portion (and if this webpage is to be trusted), that you are single with no dependents and no additional deductions, then to achieve a 30% effective tax rate (4.2% of the first $106,000 and 1.45% for medicare plus an average tax rate of 25%) you must be making over $220,000/year and well into the top 5% of earners in the U.S. And in those circumstances you really should get in touch with an adviser because there's no reason for you to be paying such high tax rates. (I am assuming that you are aware of the difference between your top marginal tax rate and your effective, or average, tax rate.)
All that is moot given that you ended your second paragraph with "I never said it was his fault" then I'm curious as to why you are holding his tax rate against him? It's completely irrational.
The 9.9% number comes from the same CNN article I linked to and is clearly after deductions and deferrals.
My fifth point had nothing to do with the size of a family and everything to do with responding to your implication that there is something unsavory about the LDS church's wealth.
If you are going to assign corporate liabilities to the employee then it would be proper to assign the corporate income tax paid to the shareholders who own that corporation. In which case those who are paying long term capital gains taxes are paying much more than 15%.
There are several reasons that I see FICA as different. First, is because FICA strictly funds two programs (social security and medicare) and people will be receiving all of that money and then some back when they reach retirement age and begin receiving social security and participating in medicare. Second, all government accounting keeps it separate from income taxes, due to the aforementioned targeted purpose. Third, really just the other side of the coin from the second reason, the federal government is funded by the income tax (and debt -- which is paid off with income tax revenue.) And that's the concern: a smaller and smaller portion of the country is paying for everything.
It's not a matter of being bad at accounting or math. It's just reality.
Obama may have had no sex scandals, but neither did Bush if that's your criteria. As far as non-sex scandals go, there's Fast and Furious for a start. There's all the "green" energy companies defaulting on their federally guaranteed loans. I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that they're owned by Obama campaign bundlers and supporters.
As far as Romney goes your complaints are:
1) He has too many children? Oh yes, how terrible that he has five children all of whom have bachelors degrees and four of which have post-graduate degrees. What a rotten place the world would be if everyone supported their children and instilled in them the necessary work ethic to finish college and graduate school and become doctors and entrepreneurs.
2) He doesn't pay an high enough percentage in taxes? He pays about 15%, which is higher than 80% of the tax payers in the country. In 2009 (the last year that the IRS has stats up for) there were 58,603,938 tax returns filed without any taxable income. I'll take the guy paying 15% over the 58 million who are paying between -6% (yes, there are people with a negative effective tax rate, i.e. they receive a larger refund than they had withheld during the year) and 0%.
3) The average effective income tax rate for households earning over $200,000 is only 9.9%. Add in FICA and that tax rate will still just be topping 13%. If you pay higher than 15%, then either I congratulate you on your exceptionally high earning or seriously recommend that you find a financial adviser.
4) Charitable giving is opaque? Huh? If you want to know where your money is going, then charitable giving is your best bet as you have total control of who you give to and you can select recipients that have just as much transparency as you desire.
5) Only about 60% of Romney's declared charitable giving went to the LDS church. The other 40% went elsewhere. Regardless I find it amazing that you can complain about the LDS church. Sure they may be wealthy on a per capita basis, but why? It's not because they're penny pinchers as they do copious amounts of charitable works and disaster relief. Remember these are a group of people who walked out of the United States because multiple attempts to settle down and do their own thing ended up in their homes being burned, their leaders being murdered and their land and chattels stolen. They crossed half the continent and settled in the middle of the desert next to a lake full of water they couldn't drink. And still they are thriving. Why? Because they believe in family, hard work, education and self-reliance. And you don't want people to look up to that?
What to do with it? Leave it exactly where it is. Let the people who benefited from the production of the waste be the ones who deal with the waste. Seems totally fair to me.
Holy shit! Been a long time since this was first posted and managed to receive several hundred mods. Followed up by a temper tantrum from the slashdot management team banning anyone who moderated it from ever moderating again.
Do you believe that there is something magical about the SPDY protocol that will make it impossible for devs to mess up the implementation? Because the problems mentioned so far in this little subthread about pipelining have nothing to do with a problem with the protocol and entirely to do with bad implementations.
1) write books. 2) hold your copyright for the length of time you think is appropriate. this could be zero years. 3) after that time passes, release your books into the public domain.
If you are right that your options 2 or 3 are superior to the existing system then you'll become more successful than the people using the existing system and therefore everyone will use your approach to copyright.
a) Pelosi (and her family and friends) flew on a "private" air force C-37A jet (a modified Gulfstream V.) So they never went through security. Nor did they apparently ever fly sober. b) Boehner does fly commercial, but apparently bypasses security.
It's entirely possible that -- due to the current configurations of the continents -- that this is responsible for the ice age cycles. As more ice is frozen the sea becomes more saline and the conveyor starts up and warms the polar regions. As the ice melts the sea becomes less saline and the conveyor stops and the poles accumulate more ice. Cycle repeats. I just made this bit up, but that's how I roll.
a) Police officers are civilians. b) They do have first amendment rights. Just not on the job. Exactly as every other employee in the world. c) Journalists can contribute as they desire. Their employer may not like it, but the government has no rules against it. d) Pedophiles can live where ever they want as long as 1) they don't act on their feelings and/or 2) they've never been caught and convicted. e) No one thinks corporations are people. Corporations are collections of people and just because people act together there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to speak. Or would you rather Google, Wikipedia, etc. not have been able to make the statements they made on Wednesday?
I'm not sure what you think my "side"'s view is (or even what "side" you think I'm on) but when it comes to Mann, Jones, Hansen, and co. those guys have repeatedly been shown to have used poor methodology. You don't need to come up with different facts and evidence to dispute a conclusion if you can show that the work done to reach the conclusion is effectively 1+1=3. That has happened several times to some of the primary proponents of AGW.
If you want information why don't you do your own research. You might try, for example, Anthony Watt's work in photographing the locations of the various weather stations used to create the temperature record and discovering them located in places like parking lots. Or Steve McIntyre's work showing that the statistical filter used by Michael Mann to create the hockey stick will create a hockey stick of any random data. Or Steve McIntyre's work showing Michael Mann based a paper on sedimentary data from Scandinavia, only problem is MM inverted the data. Or the dendrochronology paper with a data set consisting of a whole 20 trees, one of which was solely responsible for the entire increase in anomaly. Or the IPCC AR4 where they stated an 80% reduction in Himalayan glaciers by 2035, when in reality the source material said 2350 and wasn't an actual peer reviewed academic paper.
The only reason this stuff is known is because independent third parties are reviewing the work, certainly the peer review process is failing to catch these errors. And this is why I call for requirements that publicly funded research be published publicly.
I don't personally have a horse in this race, but I am astonished that more people aren't outraged at the behaviors exposed in the climategate emails and the various inquiries into practices at UAE CRU. What Jones, Mann and co. are engaged in isn't science. It's religion.
Damn that chorus of 'true believers' - aka, 97% of the worlds scientists:
And that's your problem... 96.5% of the world's scientists are not climatologists.
There would be much less pushback against the whole issue if there wasn't a core cadre of zealots who routinely avoid anyone checking their work. Given how often they've made stupid mistakes in their papers I can understand their desire not to have their work checked thus putting their various grants at risk. However understanding human nature doesn't have anything to do with the actual practice of science.
Honestly what we need is for all the first world countries that are funding climate research is to obligate all grant recipients to publish their data, their intermediate work, etc. This idea of hiding the ball isn't appropriate for publicly funded research and labor.
I'm curious.... when your site was soliciting donations did you mention that you'd be using it for political activities? Seems like it'd only be fair for you to let people know exactly what they are donating to.
Huh? What "inheritance tax that the founding fathers instituted"? The Stamp Act of 1797 that charged a whopping 0.2% of estates over $500? The same act that was instituted to pay for a navy? The same act that was repealed in 1802?
There was no "inheritance tax that the founding fathers instituted... to prohibit the creation of an aristocracy".
I'm curious as to when the scenario you've described has ever happened. So far, if wikipedia is to be believed, there have been a whole two people who went to court. Neither of them were accidental.
MSM is the anglicized name meaning "Mandarin Spaghetti Monster." The non-anglicized, but loosely translated version, is "Flying Lo-Mein Monster" aka FLMM. It's the Chinese aspect of the one true pasta lord.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really that specific. For example go hold a rally in the rotunda of your state capitol building, no problem. Now go do it at midnight. There are even public parks where you cannot be after hours. Or classrooms in state schools. Even though it's publicly owned, it's not a public forum and you can legally be barred from using it for any purpose.
As far as a precedent, there is the fundamental Millver v. California.
There is zero need for your elaborate 9th + 14th + human rights commission theory. No part of the US Constitution obligates the government to provide anyone with a platform to speak or the means to listen.
Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Obscenity
There's a huge difference between showing your penis and showing pictures of your penis. Public health is one reason.
Time, place, and manner. Long established restrictions on speech in public forums.
Also the AC who said you cannot yell fire in a crowded room is wrong. You can be restricted from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example. If there is a fire you are certainly allowed to do so.
True. The proper and clear way to phrase it is: The farther side of the moon as measured in a geocentric coordinate system.
I suspect that there are lots of countries that recognize that artificial islands are part of their territory.
Mitt & Ann have five sons. No idea where your plus four comes from.
I believe that the 80% is of federal income tax returns filed. If you are going to be comparing tax rates then you need to include your deductions. But assuming that you are including FICA and not including your employer's portion (and if this webpage is to be trusted), that you are single with no dependents and no additional deductions, then to achieve a 30% effective tax rate (4.2% of the first $106,000 and 1.45% for medicare plus an average tax rate of 25%) you must be making over $220,000/year and well into the top 5% of earners in the U.S. And in those circumstances you really should get in touch with an adviser because there's no reason for you to be paying such high tax rates. (I am assuming that you are aware of the difference between your top marginal tax rate and your effective, or average, tax rate.)
All that is moot given that you ended your second paragraph with "I never said it was his fault" then I'm curious as to why you are holding his tax rate against him? It's completely irrational.
The 9.9% number comes from the same CNN article I linked to and is clearly after deductions and deferrals.
My fifth point had nothing to do with the size of a family and everything to do with responding to your implication that there is something unsavory about the LDS church's wealth.
If you are going to assign corporate liabilities to the employee then it would be proper to assign the corporate income tax paid to the shareholders who own that corporation. In which case those who are paying long term capital gains taxes are paying much more than 15%.
There are several reasons that I see FICA as different. First, is because FICA strictly funds two programs (social security and medicare) and people will be receiving all of that money and then some back when they reach retirement age and begin receiving social security and participating in medicare. Second, all government accounting keeps it separate from income taxes, due to the aforementioned targeted purpose. Third, really just the other side of the coin from the second reason, the federal government is funded by the income tax (and debt -- which is paid off with income tax revenue.) And that's the concern: a smaller and smaller portion of the country is paying for everything.
It's not a matter of being bad at accounting or math. It's just reality.
Obama may have had no sex scandals, but neither did Bush if that's your criteria. As far as non-sex scandals go, there's Fast and Furious for a start. There's all the "green" energy companies defaulting on their federally guaranteed loans. I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that they're owned by Obama campaign bundlers and supporters.
As far as Romney goes your complaints are:
1) He has too many children? Oh yes, how terrible that he has five children all of whom have bachelors degrees and four of which have post-graduate degrees. What a rotten place the world would be if everyone supported their children and instilled in them the necessary work ethic to finish college and graduate school and become doctors and entrepreneurs.
2) He doesn't pay an high enough percentage in taxes? He pays about 15%, which is higher than 80% of the tax payers in the country. In 2009 (the last year that the IRS has stats up for) there were 58,603,938 tax returns filed without any taxable income. I'll take the guy paying 15% over the 58 million who are paying between -6% (yes, there are people with a negative effective tax rate, i.e. they receive a larger refund than they had withheld during the year) and 0%.
3) The average effective income tax rate for households earning over $200,000 is only 9.9%. Add in FICA and that tax rate will still just be topping 13%. If you pay higher than 15%, then either I congratulate you on your exceptionally high earning or seriously recommend that you find a financial adviser.
4) Charitable giving is opaque? Huh? If you want to know where your money is going, then charitable giving is your best bet as you have total control of who you give to and you can select recipients that have just as much transparency as you desire.
5) Only about 60% of Romney's declared charitable giving went to the LDS church. The other 40% went elsewhere. Regardless I find it amazing that you can complain about the LDS church. Sure they may be wealthy on a per capita basis, but why? It's not because they're penny pinchers as they do copious amounts of charitable works and disaster relief. Remember these are a group of people who walked out of the United States because multiple attempts to settle down and do their own thing ended up in their homes being burned, their leaders being murdered and their land and chattels stolen. They crossed half the continent and settled in the middle of the desert next to a lake full of water they couldn't drink. And still they are thriving. Why? Because they believe in family, hard work, education and self-reliance. And you don't want people to look up to that?
That's quite some villain.
What to do with it? Leave it exactly where it is. Let the people who benefited from the production of the waste be the ones who deal with the waste. Seems totally fair to me.
Holy shit! Been a long time since this was first posted and managed to receive several hundred mods. Followed up by a temper tantrum from the slashdot management team banning anyone who moderated it from ever moderating again.
Do you believe that there is something magical about the SPDY protocol that will make it impossible for devs to mess up the implementation? Because the problems mentioned so far in this little subthread about pipelining have nothing to do with a problem with the protocol and entirely to do with bad implementations.
So here's a thought:
1) write books.
2) hold your copyright for the length of time you think is appropriate. this could be zero years.
3) after that time passes, release your books into the public domain.
If you are right that your options 2 or 3 are superior to the existing system then you'll become more successful than the people using the existing system and therefore everyone will use your approach to copyright.
My guess is that you won't be successful.
Some people's "rogue access points" are other people's free speech. Maybe they should stop trying to squelch free speech?
a) Pelosi (and her family and friends) flew on a "private" air force C-37A jet (a modified Gulfstream V.) So they never went through security. Nor did they apparently ever fly sober.
b) Boehner does fly commercial, but apparently bypasses security.
I wouldn't call it "along interstates", but I can certainly see how it'd be confused for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team
You mean the oceanic conveyor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
It's entirely possible that -- due to the current configurations of the continents -- that this is responsible for the ice age cycles. As more ice is frozen the sea becomes more saline and the conveyor starts up and warms the polar regions. As the ice melts the sea becomes less saline and the conveyor stops and the poles accumulate more ice. Cycle repeats. I just made this bit up, but that's how I roll.
a) Police officers are civilians.
b) They do have first amendment rights. Just not on the job. Exactly as every other employee in the world.
c) Journalists can contribute as they desire. Their employer may not like it, but the government has no rules against it.
d) Pedophiles can live where ever they want as long as 1) they don't act on their feelings and/or 2) they've never been caught and convicted.
e) No one thinks corporations are people. Corporations are collections of people and just because people act together there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to speak. Or would you rather Google, Wikipedia, etc. not have been able to make the statements they made on Wednesday?
I'm not sure what you think my "side"'s view is (or even what "side" you think I'm on) but when it comes to Mann, Jones, Hansen, and co. those guys have repeatedly been shown to have used poor methodology. You don't need to come up with different facts and evidence to dispute a conclusion if you can show that the work done to reach the conclusion is effectively 1+1=3. That has happened several times to some of the primary proponents of AGW.
If you want information why don't you do your own research. You might try, for example, Anthony Watt's work in photographing the locations of the various weather stations used to create the temperature record and discovering them located in places like parking lots. Or Steve McIntyre's work showing that the statistical filter used by Michael Mann to create the hockey stick will create a hockey stick of any random data. Or Steve McIntyre's work showing Michael Mann based a paper on sedimentary data from Scandinavia, only problem is MM inverted the data. Or the dendrochronology paper with a data set consisting of a whole 20 trees, one of which was solely responsible for the entire increase in anomaly. Or the IPCC AR4 where they stated an 80% reduction in Himalayan glaciers by 2035, when in reality the source material said 2350 and wasn't an actual peer reviewed academic paper.
The only reason this stuff is known is because independent third parties are reviewing the work, certainly the peer review process is failing to catch these errors. And this is why I call for requirements that publicly funded research be published publicly.
I don't personally have a horse in this race, but I am astonished that more people aren't outraged at the behaviors exposed in the climategate emails and the various inquiries into practices at UAE CRU. What Jones, Mann and co. are engaged in isn't science. It's religion.
And that's your problem... 96.5% of the world's scientists are not climatologists.
There would be much less pushback against the whole issue if there wasn't a core cadre of zealots who routinely avoid anyone checking their work. Given how often they've made stupid mistakes in their papers I can understand their desire not to have their work checked thus putting their various grants at risk. However understanding human nature doesn't have anything to do with the actual practice of science.
Honestly what we need is for all the first world countries that are funding climate research is to obligate all grant recipients to publish their data, their intermediate work, etc. This idea of hiding the ball isn't appropriate for publicly funded research and labor.
I'm curious.... when your site was soliciting donations did you mention that you'd be using it for political activities? Seems like it'd only be fair for you to let people know exactly what they are donating to.
Huh? What "inheritance tax that the founding fathers instituted"? The Stamp Act of 1797 that charged a whopping 0.2% of estates over $500? The same act that was instituted to pay for a navy? The same act that was repealed in 1802?
There was no "inheritance tax that the founding fathers instituted ... to prohibit the creation of an aristocracy".
I'm curious as to when the scenario you've described has ever happened. So far, if wikipedia is to be believed, there have been a whole two people who went to court. Neither of them were accidental.
Two minutes behind the first first post.
That's what you get for using tor.
MSM is the anglicized name meaning "Mandarin Spaghetti Monster." The non-anglicized, but loosely translated version, is "Flying Lo-Mein Monster" aka FLMM. It's the Chinese aspect of the one true pasta lord.