Explain to me how JK Rowling stole her money. Yeah, that's what I thought. Typical asshole.. My lack of success is someone else's fault. They musta done something bad! whaaaaa
Are you high? Are you one of those nutjobs that thinks energy is finite? It may be, strictly speaking, but practically it is infinite. We just need to make more of it.
Wanna use renewables? Fine, but quit acting like any energy generation is a finite supply. You can always add one more solar panel to the array (or build another array).
You are failing to understand, or take into account, the fact that what YOU might consider a waste of electricity, others may not. And what you might consider a perfectly good usage, others may find wasteful.
I, for one, think that televisions are a blight on society. But, I'm not so egotistical that I'm going to suggest that they should be banned. I see no net positive benefit to them, but I'd rather live in a society where YOU can waste your time/money/electricity, sitting on a couch, getting stupider and fatter. I value freedom.
So, please take your holier-than-thou sentiment, and cram it up the back pipe.
You think the commodities markets are free? Do you have any idea how much money the federal government gives out in the form of subsidies to manipulate those exact same prices?
Why the FUCK is there still a sugar subsidy?!? Something like 80% of all farms are owned by large corporations and we are still subsidizing certain products (corn/sugar/etc).
Maybe if sugar was just a little bit more expensive, under a real FREE market for sugar, we'd use a little bit less of it.
As near as I can tell, the Mexicans figured out how to properly use sugar in sweetbreads.. They put a little bit on the OUTSIDE where it hits your tongue instantly.
We, on the other hand, put it on the inside and have to use so much that bread might as well be called sugar/flour cubes.
We know too much sugar is bad for us, but lets keep the price down artificially so that we can continue to use it as a filler for everything....
There is absolutely no sector of the US Economy that has anything that even resembles a free market at the present time. I can't think of any sector that doesn't have at least one large player being given chunks of cash to manipulate the pricing, even if it's only in the form of tax breaks.
price gouging that was going on earlier in 2018 and late last year, when demand was far out-stripping supply.
Price gouging? Does the author not understand how supply and demand works?
If you have a product in demand, and you cannot meet all of that demand, you raise your prices until the demand equals the supply. i.e. you REDUCE the demand to equal the supply.
That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. What the fuck are they teaching you people in school these days?
I've long had a problem with the price controls that are put in place during "emergencies". They encourage hoarding. I understand SOME controls on essentials (food/water/fuel) but the prices should be allowed to rise, at least to a reasonable level, during a crisis the prevent the exact situation that happens during every little minor bump, when uneducated morons flood the stores and sweep the shelves clean.
If you can afford to buy 200 AA batteries, you can afford to buy 100 at 2x the price and leave 100 for other people who need them....
Furthermore, javascript malware exists... If you can penetrate the ISP and begin injecting javascript malware into every active TCP connection on port 80, you could theoretically infect ever single customer (assuming a 0 day exploit). You cannot do this to HTTPS streams. They are immune from modification in transit.
Scenario 2 is exactly the kind of thing HTTPS and modern browsers protect against. When you attempt to visit an HTTPS site, your browser will not just begin fetching unencrypted components. That was mitigated way back in the IE 6 days. Nor will your browser failover from the blocked HTTPS to a working HTTP. Once again, modern browsers do not do that. If anything (in a non proxy situation) gets in between and modifies the HTTPS stream, the stream will fail to decrypt and your browser is going to display a blank page or a warning of some type.
Lies. It costs nothing for a domain name. Afraid.org has hundreds or thousands of domains you can use.. Subdomains sure, but it's still a FQDN. Fuck, even the goddamn DNS is free.
You people are all defeatist. You bitch about security, and then the second you have to do some work to be secure, you bitch about that.
Comcast / YourISPunderEvilOwner can and WILL modify your fucking HTTP traffic. They cannot modify your HTTPS traffic.. Deal with it.
That is not possible unless you are using a proxy they set up. You cannot inject ads into an HTTPS stream. Modifying any bits will cause the decryption to fail.
I was on the side that agreed with your statement.. But then I thought about it for a while... non HTTPS traffic (plain HTTP) can be modified in-stream. I think it was Comcast that was caught injecting ads into HTTP traffic a few years ago. You cannot do that with HTTPS. Do you want your ISP injecting or modifing the webpages you are trying to read? Besides, nothing prevents anyone from having two or three browsers.. If chrome isn't cutting it for you, there's always alternatives.
The banks were greedy, but they weren't alone. The ratings agencies should have been fined/jailed as well. They LIED about the quality of the bonds (at the bank's behest) and participated in the scam.
That's because you are an idiot. Any safety device can be defeated. You cannot possibly engineer against all morons. As was referenced above, even warning sirens can be defeated by cramming rags into them. A door that is meant to contain something dangerous can be defeated by blocking it so it cannot close. Do we stop selling doors? Should every safety door have to be so overly engineered that it tries to withstand all morons? How about we just go with good old PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY? Stop selling devices that have a single function of defeating a safety device. These fucking weights have ZERO OTHER USE.
Just because you can defeat something doesn't mean it should be actively sold. At least now someone will have to cobble together their own defeat-device and that will at least take some effort. They won't be able to claim "hey, I bought it so I thought it was okay to use". If someone bypasses the safety system and kills someone, they should spend the rest of their useless lives in a prison cell.
A tremor has multiple meanings. It _can_ be an earthquake, it can also be a muscle spasm, and it can be a sudden feeling of fear.
This is not a new word, I've heard it used on the news more than a few times. Yeah, they usually say "tremor", but I've heard "temblor" used as well. I don't remember specifically, but I'd guess that temblor is said when they are actually interviewing some guy from the USGS.
You ask why J.K. Rowling should pay more than others for the books she sold. Well, she benefited more than others from the fact that there are such things as people who can read, for one, which is something that is supported by the state. The more you have, the more you take advantage of the things that society has to offer, such as infrastructure for transporting books, for example, and law enforcement for contracts and copyrights, and so on.
Are you for real? She did not benefit more because people can read. She benefited more because she wrote a book more people wanted to read. The government is not necessary for this function. I could read long before I entered school. My parents took the time to teach me to read. I suspect I am not alone in this. The fact that some/most parents have abandoned this responsibility is their failing. The government did not pay for the roads, they did not pay for the infrastructure.. The government pays for NOTHING. The more you have, the more you pay already in our current system.. 20% of the citizens of the United States pay 84% of the taxes. The rich already pay a dis-proportionally larger share than they use. . But no, it's not enough...
J.K. Rowling will not starve, ever, even if taxes for amounts over 1 million go to 80%. She would not have less money than the less successful authors, just her tax bill would be bigger, total percentage wise, than theirs.
The level of arrogance in your statement is amazing. Your metric is that she won't starve?!?
Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalistic in any way. We can argue how steep the curve should be, but no tax loopholes at least should be something we all agree on.
Of course it is. It discourages growing/earning beyond a certain level, because the reward per unit of work decreases. It's absolutely anti-capitalism. A main component of successful capitalism is for your investment in time/capital/energy to DECREASE as volume increases. Most businesses try to become more efficient over time. Your system forces the exact opposite. Under your system, the more you sell or earn, the less you get to keep per unit of time/labor/whatever.
The simple fact is you people hate success. You refuse to acknowledge that under a non-progressive flat rate tax, the rich person still pays a proportionally larger chunk of tax than they use.. But that's not good enough for you.
Using a simple 10% (for easy math) rate, JK Rowling would pay $100 MILLION into the system. This is far more than she will ever pull out.
Perhaps Bill Gates dumps all $100BN of his Microsoft stock at once.. He pays $10 BILLION in taxes... That's not enough for you? It has to be $80BN (80%) because you, or they, or him, or she, or someone somewhere decides that $20BN is "enough"?? How wonderful you or they have decided they know best.. Arrogance..... Evil......
A person earning $10,000 would pay $1000. This is perhaps far less than they will pull from the system. I'm even fine with a floor limit where taxes drop to zero. I.e. maybe you have to make $20K to be taxed... But it still should be $2000. You socialists love to go on about equality.. But it's never what you really want... No, what you really want is to punish those who are successful.
No loopholes eh? I seriously doubt that's what you want... Loopholes are also called deductions.. You want to fuck over this country jolly good? Get rid of all the deductions people get to take... They are loopholes the same as any other "loophole". If you get to write off the interest on your mortgage and reduce your tax bill, that's a loophole as far as I'm concerned. You earned $50K, but for some reason (deductions) you don't have to pay $5K in taxes...... How the fuck is that fair?
The Ford Mustang (2018) is at best 25MPG (2018 Ford Mustang 2.3 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (S10), Turbo, Regular Gasoline)
and at worst, 16MPG (2018 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang 5.2 L, 8 cyl, Manual 6-spd, Premium Gasoline)
You consider that fuel efficient?
Assuming you are contradicting my statement about fuel-efficient cars selling well, I was not implying they are the majority, but that are no longer niche. I see Hybrids all over the place. Yeah, they are still vastly outnumbered by SUV's, but all the data I can find shows that the trend on the hybrids is upwards...
Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? Facebook absolutely sells user data. Technically you are correct, since "users" are not customers. I've never met anyone who paid Facebook for their profile. But, that's just being pedantic.. Facebook sells YOUR data to 3rd parties (assuming YOU use Facebook)
does my idea seem threatening to you?
i think it would be fair and if i became rich i would not be exempt from it
Your idea is not just threatening, it is evil. It's not socialism, it's communism.
J.K. Rowling harmed NOBODY on her rise to Billionaire status. Yet you wish to punish her by taking away ever larger amounts of the money she earned. As far as I know, nobody was ever forced at gunpoint to purchase a Harry Potter book. That is, to say, every single purchase of a book or movie ticket was 100% consensual. Yet you would penalize her for this. You would punish her for writing, and selling, a book that millions of people WANTED to read. I suppose under your system, had she written books that fewer people wanted, you'd consider her morally superior and take away LESS of that money.
Life isn't fair. No amount of government meddling is going to make it fair. Life will NEVER be fair. Some people will be born tall and have careers in the NBA... Of course, under your fucked up system, if they are REALLY good they'll be punished by taking away larger portions of the money that they earn, and they earn for the league, by drawing in larger crowds of people who are there voluntarily.
It never fails to amaze me how many times we can watch communism fail, cost millions of lives, and yet there is always one more moron who thinks his communism is the "right one".
It's freedom of opportunity, not freedom of outcome. There is only one way to guarantee freedom of outcome and it is to crush the human soul.
Technically you are correct, but I suspect you understood what I was trying to convey. i.e. you could abstain from tobacco, asbestos, and a million other things that give you cancer. You could eat right, exercise often, and yet, you might still get cancer, since there are cancers that are not related to external environmental factors. You aren't gonna get Mesothelioma but you might get something else.. i.e. for some of these, there is nothing you can do.
Indeed. I've always maintained that the problem with plastics is that we fail to dispose of them properly and, as you point out, they could be created from better materials.. Of course, it's probably vastly cheaper to make them from oil than to plant thousands of acres of "plastic plants".
Besides, the hardy petro-plastics certainly do have their place.. Just maybe a bit less than we are using right now..
Oh fuck you... This asshole has had 12 years of adulthood to figure out his situation. Maybe he didn't have good parents, maybe he did... But this isn't a story about parents kicking out an 18 year-old.. This sack-of-shit is THIRTY. He's been the master of his own destiny for more than a decade. At some point you have to STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR YOUR FAILINGS.
Actually you can. You can sue anybody for anything. Whether you succeed in court is another matter.
Uh... No... You obviously do not know what you are talking about.. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled long ago that you can only sue the Federal Government for those things it CONSENTS to be sued for. This is known as the Supremacy Doctrine
This makes perfect sense, since when you sue the government you are asking the exact same government (just a different branch) to rule and/or impose penalties.
This would be like suing your parents in an internal family court set in the basement.. Your parents would have to consent to the suit first, and then one of them would have to act as the judge..
You can also only sue your State Government, in state court, for those things it consents to be sued for. You can take a state to federal court, but those are two different entities.. You cannot sue your state over a non-constitutional issue, in state court, if it ALLOWS you to do so.. Supremacy Doctrine...
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how JK Rowling stole her money. Yeah, that's what I thought. Typical asshole.. My lack of success is someone else's fault. They musta done something bad! whaaaaa
Are you high? Are you one of those nutjobs that thinks energy is finite? It may be, strictly speaking, but practically it is infinite. We just need to make more of it.
Wanna use renewables? Fine, but quit acting like any energy generation is a finite supply. You can always add one more solar panel to the array (or build another array).
You are failing to understand, or take into account, the fact that what YOU might consider a waste of electricity, others may not. And what you might consider a perfectly good usage, others may find wasteful.
I, for one, think that televisions are a blight on society. But, I'm not so egotistical that I'm going to suggest that they should be banned. I see no net positive benefit to them, but I'd rather live in a society where YOU can waste your time/money/electricity, sitting on a couch, getting stupider and fatter. I value freedom.
So, please take your holier-than-thou sentiment, and cram it up the back pipe.
You think the commodities markets are free? Do you have any idea how much money the federal government gives out in the form of subsidies to manipulate those exact same prices?
Why the FUCK is there still a sugar subsidy?!? Something like 80% of all farms are owned by large corporations and we are still subsidizing certain products (corn/sugar/etc).
Maybe if sugar was just a little bit more expensive, under a real FREE market for sugar, we'd use a little bit less of it.
As near as I can tell, the Mexicans figured out how to properly use sugar in sweetbreads.. They put a little bit on the OUTSIDE where it hits your tongue instantly.
We, on the other hand, put it on the inside and have to use so much that bread might as well be called sugar/flour cubes.
We know too much sugar is bad for us, but lets keep the price down artificially so that we can continue to use it as a filler for everything....
There is absolutely no sector of the US Economy that has anything that even resembles a free market at the present time. I can't think of any sector that doesn't have at least one large player being given chunks of cash to manipulate the pricing, even if it's only in the form of tax breaks.
Right... because no motherboard with a threadripper socket has an integrated video chip..... Think before you speak...
price gouging that was going on earlier in 2018 and late last year, when demand was far out-stripping supply.
Price gouging? Does the author not understand how supply and demand works?
If you have a product in demand, and you cannot meet all of that demand, you raise your prices until the demand equals the supply. i.e. you REDUCE the demand to equal the supply.
That's exactly how the system is supposed to work. What the fuck are they teaching you people in school these days?
I've long had a problem with the price controls that are put in place during "emergencies". They encourage hoarding. I understand SOME controls on essentials (food/water/fuel) but the prices should be allowed to rise, at least to a reasonable level, during a crisis the prevent the exact situation that happens during every little minor bump, when uneducated morons flood the stores and sweep the shelves clean.
If you can afford to buy 200 AA batteries, you can afford to buy 100 at 2x the price and leave 100 for other people who need them....
Furthermore, javascript malware exists... If you can penetrate the ISP and begin injecting javascript malware into every active TCP connection on port 80, you could theoretically infect ever single customer (assuming a 0 day exploit). You cannot do this to HTTPS streams. They are immune from modification in transit.
Scenario 1 is plausible but unlikely.
Scenario 2 is exactly the kind of thing HTTPS and modern browsers protect against. When you attempt to visit an HTTPS site, your browser will not just begin fetching unencrypted components. That was mitigated way back in the IE 6 days. Nor will your browser failover from the blocked HTTPS to a working HTTP. Once again, modern browsers do not do that. If anything (in a non proxy situation) gets in between and modifies the HTTPS stream, the stream will fail to decrypt and your browser is going to display a blank page or a warning of some type.
Lies. It costs nothing for a domain name. Afraid.org has hundreds or thousands of domains you can use.. Subdomains sure, but it's still a FQDN. Fuck, even the goddamn DNS is free.
You people are all defeatist. You bitch about security, and then the second you have to do some work to be secure, you bitch about that.
Comcast / YourISPunderEvilOwner can and WILL modify your fucking HTTP traffic. They cannot modify your HTTPS traffic.. Deal with it.
DuckDuckGo is just a privacy front-end to Google... So..... yeah
what the fuck does voting for Trump have anything to do with that moron's statement?
Bullshit.
That is not possible unless you are using a proxy they set up. You cannot inject ads into an HTTPS stream. Modifying any bits will cause the decryption to fail.
I was on the side that agreed with your statement.. But then I thought about it for a while... non HTTPS traffic (plain HTTP) can be modified in-stream. I think it was Comcast that was caught injecting ads into HTTP traffic a few years ago. You cannot do that with HTTPS. Do you want your ISP injecting or modifing the webpages you are trying to read? Besides, nothing prevents anyone from having two or three browsers.. If chrome isn't cutting it for you, there's always alternatives.
So.. maybe a position reevaluation is in order?
Right... Because there's all those rich people living to 150.....
Delusional leftie.....
The banks were greedy, but they weren't alone. The ratings agencies should have been fined/jailed as well. They LIED about the quality of the bonds (at the bank's behest) and participated in the scam.
Fraud is fraud is fraud.
Right... Because the word Katana, in Ukrainian, means the same thing as it does in Japanese....
Get out of the basement..
That's because you are an idiot. Any safety device can be defeated. You cannot possibly engineer against all morons. As was referenced above, even warning sirens can be defeated by cramming rags into them. A door that is meant to contain something dangerous can be defeated by blocking it so it cannot close. Do we stop selling doors? Should every safety door have to be so overly engineered that it tries to withstand all morons? How about we just go with good old PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY? Stop selling devices that have a single function of defeating a safety device. These fucking weights have ZERO OTHER USE.
Just because you can defeat something doesn't mean it should be actively sold. At least now someone will have to cobble together their own defeat-device and that will at least take some effort. They won't be able to claim "hey, I bought it so I thought it was okay to use". If someone bypasses the safety system and kills someone, they should spend the rest of their useless lives in a prison cell.
No. A temblor is an earthquake, specifically.
A tremor has multiple meanings. It _can_ be an earthquake, it can also be a muscle spasm, and it can be a sudden feeling of fear.
This is not a new word, I've heard it used on the news more than a few times. Yeah, they usually say "tremor", but I've heard "temblor" used as well. I don't remember specifically, but I'd guess that temblor is said when they are actually interviewing some guy from the USGS.
You ask why J.K. Rowling should pay more than others for the books she sold. Well, she benefited more than others from the fact that there are such things as people who can read, for one, which is something that is supported by the state. The more you have, the more you take advantage of the things that society has to offer, such as infrastructure for transporting books, for example, and law enforcement for contracts and copyrights, and so on.
Are you for real? She did not benefit more because people can read. She benefited more because she wrote a book more people wanted to read. The government is not necessary for this function. I could read long before I entered school. My parents took the time to teach me to read. I suspect I am not alone in this. The fact that some/most parents have abandoned this responsibility is their failing. The government did not pay for the roads, they did not pay for the infrastructure.. The government pays for NOTHING. The more you have, the more you pay already in our current system.. 20% of the citizens of the United States pay 84% of the taxes. The rich already pay a dis-proportionally larger share than they use. . But no, it's not enough...
J.K. Rowling will not starve, ever, even if taxes for amounts over 1 million go to 80%. She would not have less money than the less successful authors, just her tax bill would be bigger, total percentage wise, than theirs.
The level of arrogance in your statement is amazing. Your metric is that she won't starve?!?
Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalistic in any way. We can argue how steep the curve should be, but no tax loopholes at least should be something we all agree on.
Of course it is. It discourages growing/earning beyond a certain level, because the reward per unit of work decreases. It's absolutely anti-capitalism. A main component of successful capitalism is for your investment in time/capital/energy to DECREASE as volume increases. Most businesses try to become more efficient over time. Your system forces the exact opposite. Under your system, the more you sell or earn, the less you get to keep per unit of time/labor/whatever.
The simple fact is you people hate success. You refuse to acknowledge that under a non-progressive flat rate tax, the rich person still pays a proportionally larger chunk of tax than they use.. But that's not good enough for you.
Using a simple 10% (for easy math) rate, JK Rowling would pay $100 MILLION into the system. This is far more than she will ever pull out.
Perhaps Bill Gates dumps all $100BN of his Microsoft stock at once.. He pays $10 BILLION in taxes... That's not enough for you? It has to be $80BN (80%) because you, or they, or him, or she, or someone somewhere decides that $20BN is "enough"?? How wonderful you or they have decided they know best.. Arrogance..... Evil......
A person earning $10,000 would pay $1000. This is perhaps far less than they will pull from the system. I'm even fine with a floor limit where taxes drop to zero. I.e. maybe you have to make $20K to be taxed... But it still should be $2000. You socialists love to go on about equality.. But it's never what you really want... No, what you really want is to punish those who are successful.
No loopholes eh? I seriously doubt that's what you want... Loopholes are also called deductions.. You want to fuck over this country jolly good? Get rid of all the deductions people get to take... They are loopholes the same as any other "loophole". If you get to write off the interest on your mortgage and reduce your tax bill, that's a loophole as far as I'm concerned. You earned $50K, but for some reason (deductions) you don't have to pay $5K in taxes...... How the fuck is that fair?
The Ford Mustang (2018) is at best 25MPG (2018 Ford Mustang 2.3 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (S10), Turbo, Regular Gasoline) and at worst, 16MPG (2018 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang 5.2 L, 8 cyl, Manual 6-spd, Premium Gasoline)
You consider that fuel efficient?
Assuming you are contradicting my statement about fuel-efficient cars selling well, I was not implying they are the majority, but that are no longer niche. I see Hybrids all over the place. Yeah, they are still vastly outnumbered by SUV's, but all the data I can find shows that the trend on the hybrids is upwards...
Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? Facebook absolutely sells user data. Technically you are correct, since "users" are not customers. I've never met anyone who paid Facebook for their profile. But, that's just being pedantic.. Facebook sells YOUR data to 3rd parties (assuming YOU use Facebook)
does my idea seem threatening to you? i think it would be fair and if i became rich i would not be exempt from it
Your idea is not just threatening, it is evil. It's not socialism, it's communism.
J.K. Rowling harmed NOBODY on her rise to Billionaire status. Yet you wish to punish her by taking away ever larger amounts of the money she earned. As far as I know, nobody was ever forced at gunpoint to purchase a Harry Potter book. That is, to say, every single purchase of a book or movie ticket was 100% consensual. Yet you would penalize her for this. You would punish her for writing, and selling, a book that millions of people WANTED to read. I suppose under your system, had she written books that fewer people wanted, you'd consider her morally superior and take away LESS of that money.
Life isn't fair. No amount of government meddling is going to make it fair. Life will NEVER be fair. Some people will be born tall and have careers in the NBA... Of course, under your fucked up system, if they are REALLY good they'll be punished by taking away larger portions of the money that they earn, and they earn for the league, by drawing in larger crowds of people who are there voluntarily.
It never fails to amaze me how many times we can watch communism fail, cost millions of lives, and yet there is always one more moron who thinks his communism is the "right one".
It's freedom of opportunity, not freedom of outcome. There is only one way to guarantee freedom of outcome and it is to crush the human soul.
You are an evil person.
Technically you are correct, but I suspect you understood what I was trying to convey. i.e. you could abstain from tobacco, asbestos, and a million other things that give you cancer. You could eat right, exercise often, and yet, you might still get cancer, since there are cancers that are not related to external environmental factors. You aren't gonna get Mesothelioma but you might get something else.. i.e. for some of these, there is nothing you can do.
Indeed. I've always maintained that the problem with plastics is that we fail to dispose of them properly and, as you point out, they could be created from better materials.. Of course, it's probably vastly cheaper to make them from oil than to plant thousands of acres of "plastic plants".
Besides, the hardy petro-plastics certainly do have their place.. Just maybe a bit less than we are using right now..
Oh fuck you... This asshole has had 12 years of adulthood to figure out his situation. Maybe he didn't have good parents, maybe he did... But this isn't a story about parents kicking out an 18 year-old.. This sack-of-shit is THIRTY. He's been the master of his own destiny for more than a decade. At some point you have to STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR YOUR FAILINGS.
Actually you can. You can sue anybody for anything. Whether you succeed in court is another matter.
Uh... No... You obviously do not know what you are talking about.. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled long ago that you can only sue the Federal Government for those things it CONSENTS to be sued for. This is known as the Supremacy Doctrine
This makes perfect sense, since when you sue the government you are asking the exact same government (just a different branch) to rule and/or impose penalties.
This would be like suing your parents in an internal family court set in the basement.. Your parents would have to consent to the suit first, and then one of them would have to act as the judge..
You can also only sue your State Government, in state court, for those things it consents to be sued for. You can take a state to federal court, but those are two different entities.. You cannot sue your state over a non-constitutional issue, in state court, if it ALLOWS you to do so.. Supremacy Doctrine...