I'm not a crass GOP supporter, but yes, I do have that expectation. That's what assistants are for - to give you things you want when you want them. They don't need to hover over the toilet, they can discretely loiter outside the bathroom door.
I thought a large portion of the reason she used her own mail server was to protect herself from the Obama administration. Well, that and funneling bribes through the Clinton library.
they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.
That is the point about rules. If they're following the rules, then they can act that way. If they can't, then there are hidden rules (or rather, someone's whims imposed in addition to whatever rules actually exist), which are anathema to a democracy.
Yeah why can't the little guy (who is the biggest taxi company in the world) just be left in peace to break the law for long enough to form a monopoly and put all those guys who currently make a living driving a taxi out of a job?
The medallion system implemented in a lot of places is venal and corrupt. But let's excuse it because there's a "biggest taxi company in the world" that I don't like.
The fact that you pay part of what you owe isn't an excuse to break the laws and not pay the other part, sorry.
And we should always respect the law no matter how unjust, foolish, or tyrannical it might be, right?
Uber is a business that cons them outside of the law. That's the problem.
Proof or STFU.
Oh, please, nobody thinks you're all that important. As I said, your misguided opinions are just fun to feed, because you're a good troll and always bite. Now back under the bridge:))))
If you think not paying the VAT is not a problem, it would seem that you think that not paying any money to the government is not a problem, and hence that getting rid of the government would not be a problem.
I think rather that you don't understand my position. The VAT not only is a revenue source which can be expanded much larger than required for the limited services which I think should be the purview of a government, but it is also a very intrusive means of taxation and an invisible means of taxation (voters don't normally see the cost of the VAT to themselves).
My view is that if your national-level governement is spending more than 10% of your country's GDP, then it has too much revenue. I'd halve that percentage for countries like US which are federal and for which the national-level government doesn't actually do many things. A VAT is a considerable tool for government overreach in a variety of ways.
In other words, the Supreme Court could have said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.
Which is what they did.
Alternately, if McCain-Feingold were changed appropriately, there'd be no need for corporate rights of free speech.
Just like if we passed the right legislation, there'd be no need for you to have freedom of speech either? Think about it.
Similarly, corporate property could be interpreted as being the stockholder's property, so that an illegal confiscation of 3M property would affect my Fourth Amendment rights.
Uber is the scam: it is fueling a considerable bit of corruption where it operates by providing a mechanism for some drivers and service users to free ride on public goods like roads, safety and social security, which they use without paying their dues.
That's nonsense. You still have a variety of taxes which are paid for by either Uber or the vehicle operators. And roads and safety, genuine concerns of a government, just aren't that expensive.
Social security is a bottomless pit of need which I think contributes nothing to society past keeping a few of the bottom rungs of society from rioting. The actual practical part requires vastly less resources than what are actually expended, at least in name, on social security.
This is, of course, done by Uber with the only hope to survive until an IPO on a baseless appearance of huge 'valuation', created with small 'investments' in tiny shares, basically, another scam to siphon even more money. The new owners will, of course, be left to deal with the fines and the litigation, costs, that won't be emphasized in the IR section on the website.
So what? If someone wants to be stupid with that much money, then Uber is doing all of society a favor by taking some of their crayons away. It's worth noting here that the gullible, particularly those in control of massive amounts of other peoples' money, are a serious danger to themselves and others. And if a business can, within the law, con them into giving away their money, it's a net good for all of us.
In other words, as Adam Smith discovered long ago, greed is dangerous, and the result of its unchallenged operation is always a wealth redistribution into the pockets of those, who jump over the laws, that is, the criminals.
I quite agree. Which is why I advocating strongly restricting the collecting of tax revenue and in turn strongly restricting what government is allowed to spend that money on. But hey, let's worry about some rider sharing business rather than some anti-democratic patronage/rent-seeking system or the other massive, institutionalized abuses that governments do.
The only people who think shrewd shady characters running amok without control isn't 'corruption', are the blunter tools that get their ejukeishun about economics from what they've heard on AM radio shows about a worthless sci-fi book by a certain Alisa Rosenbaum.
Once again, we see the bizarre situation of someone complaining about Ayn Rand and her two dimensional stories while acting like a minor villain from one of those very stories. I'd treat your concerns more seriously, if you actually used reason rather than platitudes which Ayn Rand was able to predict 50 or more years ago. I don't expect everyone to magically agree with me, but I do expect some thought put into a reasoned argument.
I've seen plenty of people outline poorly or non- working societies with taxes. I'd care about your words, if you cared what those taxes were paying for rather than just treat the paying of taxes as an unalloyed good.
The Citizens United ruling provided such an example. If a single citizen wanted to pay for a film bashing Hillary Clinton even a few days before a major election, then it's just fine, they're excising their First Amendment rights. But back in 2008, if a group of citizens wanted to do so and happened to have incorporated, then they couldn't due to a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act prohibiting various forms of political speech by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election.
That was the violation of rights that was corrected with the Citizens United ruling.
There's also historical examples of local and state governments trying to steal from corporations or chartered groups which were grotesque violations of the Fourth Amendment. For example, one of the earliest cases was the state of New Hampshire trying to take over Dartmouth College.
All you can do is stop them getting into places where they can game the system and ignore those rules designed to stop "the bad people".
I see no evidence that you can do that. Even if we ignore that breaking rules is normal human behavior (and routinely expressed by anyone who can get away with it!), we still have thousands of years of history to demonstrate that rule breakers always find their way into positions from which they can game the system.
would find its "rights" are solely those of its owners, rather than a second set defined for itself.
This is already the current situation. The point behind rulings like Citizen United is to protect the rights of the people involved in the corporation not to grant them new rights.
You do realize that is already recognized law? Corporate personhood doesn't make corporations people. It'd really help if you understood the actual legal situation first.
but basically the VAT, part of the social security and most insurance is due by the operator -- those who collect the fees and organize the service.
-In other words, mostly money to fuel a considerable bit of corruption in society. I'm not seeing the drawback here. And the insurance is still paid by the operators who are the drivers not Uber.
Instead I would argue that no social security benefits should be paid to people living abroad, or have those benefits adjusted automatically for local cost of living. (excepting state pensions, which should be free to spend as one pleases). Require recipients to be registered in the country and have them collect their benefits in person.
And why would you argue any of that? I find it interesting how cruel people can be even when they supposedly are being generous with other peoples' money.
While the previous poster's claims are bombastic and erroneous (since while solar and wind aren't as dense as nuclear, they are more than dense enough), I find your statements have similar problems.
First, it is not your place to decide what human activities are "necessary" and what are not. It's a highly subjective determination anyway with your opinion of what is necessary usually very different from anyone else's. For example, your life is necessary to you, but it is merely of immeasurably modest convenience to me.
Nor does an activity have to be necessary in order to be useful or interesting to us. I view this as just a rhetorical ploy to invalidate things you don't like. You should stop making such arguments.
Further, a big portion of it needs to stop, because it's predicated upon unsustainable practices like CO2 release without matching sequestration, or deforestation, or any of dozens of other activities inherently harmful to the biosphere upon which we depend for our very existence.
I don't need that to stop which invalidates this subjective argument. And it's worth noting that most human goals are one time. They don't need to be based on sustainable practices. For example, I don't need human society to be sustainable till the Sun goes nova in order to build a better solar panel or other invention. The amount of eventual effort is fixed no matter how much or little the effort is sustainable.
And that leads us to the huge, ignored observation about the necessity of sustainability. Even if we want sustainability in the long term, we don't need sustainability in the short term in order to reach that goal.
As I've indicated in the past, I don't buy that substantial sustainability is something we need to attain right now (or even need to devote considerable resources towards for that matter), especially given that most of our resources will still be around later. Garbage dumps for example, won't magically disappear. Similarly, I don't think we will need to devote significant collective efforts to encouraging or transitioning to greater sustainability when we have economic systems that naturally encourage sustainability at smaller scales when those actions becomes more viable than unsustainable practices (eg, why buy a gasolined-power car that is expensive to operate due to the high price of gas than an electric car?).
So not only can we decrease our energy consumption, we must.
There's no reason for that. There's way more energy out there than we currently use. And the real world trend is to more energy consumption per capita.
Slashdot Mirror
So she avoided official servers because they are subject to FOIA requests and Congressional Subpoenas.
Considering she still gave-up all of the email and the servers, that statement has been proven a lie.
'How do you know that? There's been plenty of time to sanitize the server(s) in question.
I'm not a crass GOP supporter, but yes, I do have that expectation. That's what assistants are for - to give you things you want when you want them. They don't need to hover over the toilet, they can discretely loiter outside the bathroom door.
In other words, the emails were classified because they had classified information in them.
Read the post. The previous poster didn't say that. I can use handguns "to dramatic effect" without having to invent them first.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent.
They found four emails where the contents were classified at the time the emails were sent.
I thought a large portion of the reason she used her own mail server was to protect herself from the Obama administration. Well, that and funneling bribes through the Clinton library.
they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.
That is the point about rules. If they're following the rules, then they can act that way. If they can't, then there are hidden rules (or rather, someone's whims imposed in addition to whatever rules actually exist), which are anathema to a democracy.
So Mit Romney is your moral and legal authority?
Yeah why can't the little guy (who is the biggest taxi company in the world) just be left in peace to break the law for long enough to form a monopoly and put all those guys who currently make a living driving a taxi out of a job?
The medallion system implemented in a lot of places is venal and corrupt. But let's excuse it because there's a "biggest taxi company in the world" that I don't like.
The fact that you pay part of what you owe isn't an excuse to break the laws and not pay the other part, sorry.
And we should always respect the law no matter how unjust, foolish, or tyrannical it might be, right?
Uber is a business that cons them outside of the law. That's the problem.
Proof or STFU.
Oh, please, nobody thinks you're all that important. As I said, your misguided opinions are just fun to feed, because you're a good troll and always bite. Now back under the bridge :))))
I don't recall caring what "nobody" thinks.
If you think not paying the VAT is not a problem, it would seem that you think that not paying any money to the government is not a problem, and hence that getting rid of the government would not be a problem.
I think rather that you don't understand my position. The VAT not only is a revenue source which can be expanded much larger than required for the limited services which I think should be the purview of a government, but it is also a very intrusive means of taxation and an invisible means of taxation (voters don't normally see the cost of the VAT to themselves).
My view is that if your national-level governement is spending more than 10% of your country's GDP, then it has too much revenue. I'd halve that percentage for countries like US which are federal and for which the national-level government doesn't actually do many things. A VAT is a considerable tool for government overreach in a variety of ways.
In other words, the Supreme Court could have said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.
Which is what they did.
Alternately, if McCain-Feingold were changed appropriately, there'd be no need for corporate rights of free speech.
Just like if we passed the right legislation, there'd be no need for you to have freedom of speech either? Think about it.
Similarly, corporate property could be interpreted as being the stockholder's property, so that an illegal confiscation of 3M property would affect my Fourth Amendment rights.
Which it is.
Show us this declassification was done. Merely storing or distributing classified information (in an illegal manner) is not declassification.
Thermonuclear weapons are the obvious extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim.
No more mind blowing than a coal or nuclear power plant.
Uber is the scam: it is fueling a considerable bit of corruption where it operates by providing a mechanism for some drivers and service users to free ride on public goods like roads, safety and social security, which they use without paying their dues.
That's nonsense. You still have a variety of taxes which are paid for by either Uber or the vehicle operators. And roads and safety, genuine concerns of a government, just aren't that expensive.
Social security is a bottomless pit of need which I think contributes nothing to society past keeping a few of the bottom rungs of society from rioting. The actual practical part requires vastly less resources than what are actually expended, at least in name, on social security.
This is, of course, done by Uber with the only hope to survive until an IPO on a baseless appearance of huge 'valuation', created with small 'investments' in tiny shares, basically, another scam to siphon even more money. The new owners will, of course, be left to deal with the fines and the litigation, costs, that won't be emphasized in the IR section on the website.
So what? If someone wants to be stupid with that much money, then Uber is doing all of society a favor by taking some of their crayons away. It's worth noting here that the gullible, particularly those in control of massive amounts of other peoples' money, are a serious danger to themselves and others. And if a business can, within the law, con them into giving away their money, it's a net good for all of us.
In other words, as Adam Smith discovered long ago, greed is dangerous, and the result of its unchallenged operation is always a wealth redistribution into the pockets of those, who jump over the laws, that is, the criminals.
I quite agree. Which is why I advocating strongly restricting the collecting of tax revenue and in turn strongly restricting what government is allowed to spend that money on. But hey, let's worry about some rider sharing business rather than some anti-democratic patronage/rent-seeking system or the other massive, institutionalized abuses that governments do.
The only people who think shrewd shady characters running amok without control isn't 'corruption', are the blunter tools that get their ejukeishun about economics from what they've heard on AM radio shows about a worthless sci-fi book by a certain Alisa Rosenbaum.
Once again, we see the bizarre situation of someone complaining about Ayn Rand and her two dimensional stories while acting like a minor villain from one of those very stories. I'd treat your concerns more seriously, if you actually used reason rather than platitudes which Ayn Rand was able to predict 50 or more years ago. I don't expect everyone to magically agree with me, but I do expect some thought put into a reasoned argument.
I've seen plenty of people outline poorly or non- working societies with taxes. I'd care about your words, if you cared what those taxes were paying for rather than just treat the paying of taxes as an unalloyed good.
The Citizens United ruling provided such an example. If a single citizen wanted to pay for a film bashing Hillary Clinton even a few days before a major election, then it's just fine, they're excising their First Amendment rights. But back in 2008, if a group of citizens wanted to do so and happened to have incorporated, then they couldn't due to a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act prohibiting various forms of political speech by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election.
That was the violation of rights that was corrected with the Citizens United ruling.
There's also historical examples of local and state governments trying to steal from corporations or chartered groups which were grotesque violations of the Fourth Amendment. For example, one of the earliest cases was the state of New Hampshire trying to take over Dartmouth College.
All you can do is stop them getting into places where they can game the system and ignore those rules designed to stop "the bad people".
I see no evidence that you can do that. Even if we ignore that breaking rules is normal human behavior (and routinely expressed by anyone who can get away with it!), we still have thousands of years of history to demonstrate that rule breakers always find their way into positions from which they can game the system.
Imagine if Obama announced he'd resign if congress passed bill X.
They'd have to believe him first - wouldn't happen.
would find its "rights" are solely those of its owners, rather than a second set defined for itself.
This is already the current situation. The point behind rulings like Citizen United is to protect the rights of the people involved in the corporation not to grant them new rights.
Or pass a law saying that corps are not people
You do realize that is already recognized law? Corporate personhood doesn't make corporations people. It'd really help if you understood the actual legal situation first.
but basically the VAT, part of the social security and most insurance is due by the operator -- those who collect the fees and organize the service.
-In other words, mostly money to fuel a considerable bit of corruption in society. I'm not seeing the drawback here. And the insurance is still paid by the operators who are the drivers not Uber.
Instead I would argue that no social security benefits should be paid to people living abroad, or have those benefits adjusted automatically for local cost of living. (excepting state pensions, which should be free to spend as one pleases). Require recipients to be registered in the country and have them collect their benefits in person.
And why would you argue any of that? I find it interesting how cruel people can be even when they supposedly are being generous with other peoples' money.
First, it is not your place to decide what human activities are "necessary" and what are not. It's a highly subjective determination anyway with your opinion of what is necessary usually very different from anyone else's. For example, your life is necessary to you, but it is merely of immeasurably modest convenience to me.
Nor does an activity have to be necessary in order to be useful or interesting to us. I view this as just a rhetorical ploy to invalidate things you don't like. You should stop making such arguments.
Further, a big portion of it needs to stop, because it's predicated upon unsustainable practices like CO2 release without matching sequestration, or deforestation, or any of dozens of other activities inherently harmful to the biosphere upon which we depend for our very existence.
I don't need that to stop which invalidates this subjective argument. And it's worth noting that most human goals are one time. They don't need to be based on sustainable practices. For example, I don't need human society to be sustainable till the Sun goes nova in order to build a better solar panel or other invention. The amount of eventual effort is fixed no matter how much or little the effort is sustainable.
And that leads us to the huge, ignored observation about the necessity of sustainability. Even if we want sustainability in the long term, we don't need sustainability in the short term in order to reach that goal.
As I've indicated in the past, I don't buy that substantial sustainability is something we need to attain right now (or even need to devote considerable resources towards for that matter), especially given that most of our resources will still be around later. Garbage dumps for example, won't magically disappear. Similarly, I don't think we will need to devote significant collective efforts to encouraging or transitioning to greater sustainability when we have economic systems that naturally encourage sustainability at smaller scales when those actions becomes more viable than unsustainable practices (eg, why buy a gasolined-power car that is expensive to operate due to the high price of gas than an electric car?).
So not only can we decrease our energy consumption, we must.
There's no reason for that. There's way more energy out there than we currently use. And the real world trend is to more energy consumption per capita.