"Some members take the effort to find VPNs so that they can use our service even more, and we obviously don't care very much for that."
If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?
"It's your fault we're so irrationally scared of something that has an infinitesimal chance of killing 0.0001% of the population that we'll generate more ammo for radicalization."
Sixty octillion one hundred ninety-five septillion three hundred sixty-eight sextillion five hundred forty-one quintillion four hundred seventy-four quadrillion six hundred seventy-three trillion eight hundred twenty-two billion six hundred thirty-one million nine hundred forty-five thousand two hundred ninety-one, sixty octillion one hundred ninety-five septillion three hundred sixty-eight sextillion five hundred forty-one quintillion four hundred seventy-four quadrillion six hundred seventy-three trillion eight hundred twenty-two billion six hundred thirty-one million nine hundred forty-five thousand two hundred ninety-two... shit I lost count.
It's very interesting to see the green parties of Europe take up the cause of free software and freedom-of-information/IP-reform positions that are usually advocated by pirate parties. These green parties were instrumental in helping defeat ACTA in the European parliament, and it is nice to see these platforms finding more support.
The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)
Because some people have an actual medical reason that they cannot take the vaccine. These people need protection, whether you believe so or not.
Also there's no threat of violence, silly libertarian.
Just because some people have religious objections to a law does not mean we necessarily must make exceptions for them. They're free to believe whatever they want to believe, but they are not necessarily free to put it into practice if it endangers other people, or any other compelling state interest.
Do you think that Islamic terrorists should be free to murder whoever they want because trying to stop them would violate religious freedom? They're certainly free to believe that it is justified, but they are not free to put it into practice.
In
Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme Court ruled that the State can deny unemployment benefits to users of peyote, as the ban did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Even more to the point Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that the State only needs to justify compulsory vaccination on the State's basic police powers in order to be constitutional.
Anti-vaxx parents are free to believe that vaccines are an evil communist jew plot, AND they can choose not to vaccinate their kids. They just can't send their kids to public school. As long as the law is neutral and does not target any specific religious group (a tax on wearing yamulkes e.g.), there is no valid First Amendment challenge.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some members take the effort to find VPNs so that they can use our service even more, and we obviously don't care very much for that." If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?
Probably a Poe, but if not this doesn't really work when the skull was stolen from its original owners beforehand.
"It's your fault we're so irrationally scared of something that has an infinitesimal chance of killing 0.0001% of the population that we'll generate more ammo for radicalization."
Clearly this is the best compromise.
Looks like ALEC's misinformation campaign is going on more smoothly than scheduled.
Being Trump supporters, they've already cut to the chase.
If anything it just makes me crave a Fanta.
Curry flavored snacks is very much a Japanese thing, Google image search "japan curry flavored snack" for more examples. They love curry over there.
What is it with disputed dead celebrities and holograms? First Tupac and now this. Maybe it's really him?
Whoosh
Fight the power, vote Lib Dem! They'll fight the system.
Sixty octillion one hundred ninety-five septillion three hundred sixty-eight sextillion five hundred forty-one quintillion four hundred seventy-four quadrillion six hundred seventy-three trillion eight hundred twenty-two billion six hundred thirty-one million nine hundred forty-five thousand two hundred ninety-one, sixty octillion one hundred ninety-five septillion three hundred sixty-eight sextillion five hundred forty-one quintillion four hundred seventy-four quadrillion six hundred seventy-three trillion eight hundred twenty-two billion six hundred thirty-one million nine hundred forty-five thousand two hundred ninety-two... shit I lost count.
Wouldn't sortition be jury duty on steroids?
Are they as questionable as praxeology?
It's very interesting to see the green parties of Europe take up the cause of free software and freedom-of-information/IP-reform positions that are usually advocated by pirate parties. These green parties were instrumental in helping defeat ACTA in the European parliament, and it is nice to see these platforms finding more support.
Yes it can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Do countries giving away free heroin to addicts count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)
The Commerce Clause? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
If you bothered to read it, the patent is in the article: https://www.google.com/patents...
Would you have objected to the Loving v. Virginia case as well?
Some time before they decided to have literally censored internet and other nanny-state bullshit.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats.
[citation needed]
Stupid bleeding heart cunts and their faggoty Eighth Amendment.
Because some people have an actual medical reason that they cannot take the vaccine. These people need protection, whether you believe so or not. Also there's no threat of violence, silly libertarian.
Do you think that Islamic terrorists should be free to murder whoever they want because trying to stop them would violate religious freedom? They're certainly free to believe that it is justified, but they are not free to put it into practice.
In Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme Court ruled that the State can deny unemployment benefits to users of peyote, as the ban did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Even more to the point Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that the State only needs to justify compulsory vaccination on the State's basic police powers in order to be constitutional.
Anti-vaxx parents are free to believe that vaccines are an evil communist jew plot, AND they can choose not to vaccinate their kids. They just can't send their kids to public school. As long as the law is neutral and does not target any specific religious group (a tax on wearing yamulkes e.g.), there is no valid First Amendment challenge.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
You mean like in New York?