No it won't. The Constitution is just about meaningless these days.
It's not that it is meaningless -- sadly, Constitution just needs to be interpreted. I think the judges are really phoning it in.
For example "right against unreasonable searches" basically hinges on the meaning of "unreasonable". If a judge agrees that "police wanted to do it" means "reasonable", then Constitution won't protect you at all
Same with "cruel and unusual" punishment. As long as no punishment (e.g., 2 million fine for 10 songs) is recognized as "cruel and unusual", then Constitution does not apply
Maybe it's because when Bush was president and something like this is proposed, we heard repeatedly how evil Bush was. Now that Obama is president
Obama turned out out just as evil as Bush in a number of ways.
and this is a bill by a Democrat introduced into a Democrat led Senate, all we hear is that both parties are the same.
Both parties are _not_ the same but they seem to have come to a silent agreement on 80% of the issues, which does not bode well for us. They likely agreed before, but I think they used to be more circumspect about agreeing so much.
Maybe everyone should go back and look at the vote they cast a couple of weeks ago and wonder if they made the right decision.
Yeah, the two-party choice is the bad thing here. No, the vote cast a couple of weeks ago was still correct, because Romney would do the same things as Obama is doing, plus some other damage on those few issues where they disagree (particularly anything that came from Ryan). The sad part is that these two candidates were the best D/R parties could offer:(
Gee let me wear this contraption that will garner all sorts of attention.
I can understand someones desire to express his art but to do it in an airport with TSA screeners who are basically highschool push outs is just fucking stupid.
I disagree with you. It is true that he could expect to be searched and tested for explosives for wearing a strange watch. But I still would not expect him to be detained after a further inspection had found no explosives on him. Also, is he an idiot for wearing thick-soled shoes to the airport as well?
He's doing a valuable service to us -- pointing out how ridiculous things got. A charge of "having wires that may be used to make a bomb" (in a McGyver episode) is now enough to be detained and taken out of the airport into police custody?
With all the bullshit pictures on the linked site, one would think there would be an image of the fucking watch...
That would be like... gasp... distributing pictures of materials that can be potentially used to make a bomb. A lesser offense, but probably enough to get a fine
Not to mention the risks that the terrorists will learn what kind of ornate watches around suspicion and de-assemble their bombs into less suspicious ornate watches
On a serious note -- the guy is still detained, not like they could contact him for comment or pictures
I'll reserve judgement until I see the boots and the watch.
NO! The judgement is complete once they found no trace of explosive materials
Having wires on you or wearing thick shoes is absolutely no reason for being detained. Even if he had an actual bomb timer, that's nothing without a bomb
So, I am not an expert on politics, but in the current congress, there 51 democratic senators, 47 republican senators, and 2 independents (both of whom caucus with the democrats). By my count, if every single senate republican voted against this, that still only comes to 47 votes. That means that the other 4 would have had to break ranks with the democratic party. So, just who is at fault here?
Uhm... the party that supplied MOST OF 51 against vote is largely responsible. Certainly if it is 47 Republicans + 4 Democrats are voting against, then it is Republicans who are actually blocking the bill? How else can you interpret it?
Also, everything needs a supermajority nowdays. Republicans block things with less-than-50 votes just fine. Democrats had 58 votes for veterans jobs bill and that amounted to nothing.
End result, data caps and packet snooping so it's a pain in the ass to download ANY large amount of data because we're automatically assumed to be dirty pirates.
I feel your pain, but don't be deluded into thinking that pirates cause data caps
Verizon doesn't want to upgrade their network and supply the bandwidth they actually sold. Overselling is lucrative -- hence the data caps
Also, many providers are paving the way for selling their own streaming services (or partnering with one). Hence, it is nice to have strict caps and then say "oh, and OUR service does not count towards your cap".
People should buy digital content now that it is sometimes available in a convenient form. But don't think for a second that doing so will stop all this bandwidth cap bullshit. We need competition -- having multiple alternative ISP services available would be a good start. Over last decade, I usually had 1 choice available to me, sometimes 2 (cable and DSL).
What are the chances that this will simply be used to target anyone who uses the bandwidth they paid for?
Not to mention the lucrative $35 review fees involved. It's a win-win for Verizon.
Soon this will turn into highly desirable insurance -- i.e. "pay extra $10/month and we will protect you from lawsuits by not releasing your info". (or at least actually fight for you in court before releasing it)
I suppose we are set to see a Cybersecurity Agency with powers to monitor everything and permaban people from the internet based on anonymous accusations like the no-flight lists? What's the worst that could happen?
Imagine how useful they would be with proper inter-agency information sharing rules!
Now, if FBI wants to bust that file sharer and can't get access to their information, they could just ask the CyberAgency to help them out.
After all, the majority of the PATRIOT act provisions are often applied to anti-drug busts since PATRIOT provisions are just easier to use than regular laws. Who cares if it was developed as a response to terrorists...
sometimes it's seen to be desirable to have a crisis so that more power can be seized during the emotional response than would be possible at any other time.
Sadly, it seems like "terrorists are out to get us" is a catch-all condition that works on anything now.
Drone bombing programs in various countries and "kill list" were deployed simply because of the teh evilz terorrizst, with no particular event to back that up. A crisis is no longer necessary.
seems they are consistently boorish, idiotic in rulemaking, inconsistent, and being called out as leaders in group comedy, instead of as an effective security force.
You are missing the most important part
There are NO demonstrable results that anyone in TSA could show for the last 11 years. The 2-3 half-assed terrorist attempts (shoe bomber, etc.) have been stopped by other passengers. TSA accomplishments are rivaled only by the anti-terrorist rock (though TSA is significantly more expensive)
I asked this before and I will ask again -- how does an agency exist/expand/get funding without demonstrating any results whatsoever? One could dislike CIA/FBI/IRS, but one could at least point to something beneficial that they actually do.
It just went away with comments like yours. No one will ever work with the DNC because their attitude is just like yours.
Not true. GOP does not work with DNC because compromises are viewed as a sign of weakness and encouragment for Obama/Democrats. Also, if Republicans and Democrats ever accomplished something good together, Democrats may claim credit for this. Republicans strive to avoid such outcome at all costs
At best they'll get a response that says the whitehouse cannot respond for whatever reason they figure is vague enough not to be offensive to anyone at the time.
Oh, not at all!
Sometimes they are fine with offending, too
The director of TSA writing an answer to "Abolish TSA" petition is the best example. He didn't even feel the need to _pretend_. The answer didn't say:
We heard your complaints and while we will not abolish the TSA, we will strive to improve and fix things
Instead, the answer said:
TSA is the awesomest thing ever and by the way here's our exciting plan for next 10 years. It really did look like he copy-pasted it from the brochure "Is TSA awesome or is TSA super-awesome? - you decide."
Congress is supposed to regulate war, actually. The only reason Obama goes on with wars/drone strikes is because Congress is staying out of it - uniformly so on both R-side and D-side.
If Congress is "staying out of it", then he has no authority to do it. The fact that Congress isn't doing anything about it doesn't grant him implicit authority to do so.
You have no idea how much I agree with you. I was just saying that if Republicans were interested in stopping Obama for the good of the country (which is your assertion), they would be fighting this one. It is a weak defense, but still -- it is indeed harder for Democrats to lead the opposition to what Obama does. You'd think it would be easier for Republicans.
If Obama wants to get some law passed, he has to give up something else of greater value. Want to pass a carbon tax? Repeal Obamacare. Want to raise taxes? Make big cuts in entitlements. That's the kind of deals he can get. Other "deals" are simply not interesting to his political opponents, and why should they be?
Fair enough. I would like to focus on the 2nd one here ("Want to raise taxes?"). During the last negotiation they could not agree because no matter what was offered, Republicans made a pledge to NOT RAISE TAXES. They negotiated and negotiated, but Republicans were not able to actually raise taxes. The best they could offer is to say that once taxes are cut, economy will improve and lower taxes will bring in extra money. Even if true, you agree that this is a laughable "concession", right?
It's not even a question of whether Democrats have offered enough. At no point was there a counter offer from Republicans that involved anything that looked like raising taxes. Not even at a 99%/1% balance. You are clearly a reasonable person, so your position on this is - negotiate and get more than 50% of the deal. That's fine. But due to their ridiculous pledge, Republicans could not even offer 1% concession, perhaps you missed that? And they made no secret of that either.
The funniest thing is that they were never talking about raising taxes (I don't think) as much as letting tax cuts expire. If Republicans wanted to permanently lower taxes, they should have not been invading Iraq... that cost money.
Your view that doing nothing amounts to "letting the country burn" is itself a very left wing political view.
We do not have a left wing in US. We have a moderate-right wing and a far-far-right wing.
So from the point of view of his political opponents, stopping him at every turn isn't "letting the country burn", it is preventing legislation that would harm the country.
Republicans did manage to block a bill that would fund jobs for veterans on the reasoning that we have no money. Unless these Republicans voted against the wars (very few!), that makes them hypocritical to the extreme.
Obama can spend less, regulate less, withdraw the military, stop engaging in wars or drone strikes, and stop violating civil liberties all on his own without any help from Congress.
Congress is supposed to regulate war, actually. The only reason Obama goes on with wars/drone strikes is because Congress is staying out of it - uniformly so on both R-side and D-side.
Also, Obama cannot spend or regulate or even violate civil liberties -- just about every one of those things (except for "kill list") had passed through Congress.
If Obama wants to negotiate over this, he needs to bring something to the table that his political opponents want, and there is very little that he can offer.
Republicans _could_ come up with something as part of the negotiation. They must want something (and they should be willing to give something in return). If their offer is "here's what we want to do and there is no room for compromise", why should Democrats bargain with them? Would you?
I don't see why. If the GOP meets Obama part way, Obama will just push the envelope even further,
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem in a nutshell
The position here is -- If GOP were to ever compromise, even a little bit, they would show weakness and embolden Obama. So the solution is, clearly, to block everything and let the country burn.
One cannot negotiate when ANY compromise is considered an unacceptable sign of weakness. Can you come up with a reason why would Democrats just give up? It's not really a negotiation when one side is not willing to budge an inch, no matter what. The term for that is "throwing a tantrum"
Instead of providing a salary that your workers will inevitably waste on unnecessary items like iPhones and designer shirts
Hehe, also, Foxconn would be out of luck if the workers no longer had money on unnecessary items like iPhones.
Not sure if Foxconn makes designer shirts.
If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.
You do realize that the comparison refers to things like "influence on the world"/success and not on personal qualities?
From what I understand, Steve Jobs was also not the nicest person you ever met - but that's not really relevant, unless Elon Musk's personality is being compared.
Does it bother anyone.......that candidates are winning elections via data mining versus appealing to people with ideas?
It seems like Wall Street's version of capitalism -- just focus on the numbers, not on making a newer widget, and we can manipulate our way to victory.
Yes, yes it does.
But then Obama had manipulated his way to victory by making "idea" promises too, 4 years ago. He promised to undo most of questionable Bush-administration tactics, but instead he expanded on (most of) them.
So yes, they use what they can
When they had a candidate with very little record on issues, he ran on ideas that appealed to people. Never mind that he turned around and did the opposite for a shocking number of promises right away. Not "tried to follow up and failed" but "did the exact opposite right away"
Now that they have a candidate with 4 years of public record, they ran on data-mining numbers and "Romney will be worse for the country" instead
Anything to win, there are no honorable political campaigns, at least not on that level.
Plus he seemed to have lost a huge amount of the support he had in 2008.
Maybe that's because he had done a 180 degree turn on most of his promises? The ones that got that huge amount of support in 2008? Campaigning on "change and hope" was no longer possible, since we now have 4 years of actual record.
a win is a win... but looking at it objectively a sigh of relief is more appropriate than a cry of victory.
Republicans had a chance, but they needed a stronger candidate. Why is it so hard to find one strong candidate? I mean, look at who Romney was competing against at the end -- Gingrich, McCain, Santorum...
Fines would mean crap to companies and individuals alike if they were levied as a percentage of income instead of a flat amount. Is there any good reason why it isn't done this way?
Yes! Yes, there is. According to this article, AT&T paid zero taxes (received subsidies, even) in 2011, which means they probably had near zero official income in 2011.
Maybe you can't pull such crap in UK, but in US percentage of corporation income is not the way to go.
Indeed.
I am certain that Romney would make it his first act in the office to loosen the copyright/IP witchhunt. It was totally the election between pro-buisness Obama vs the liberal candidate Romney
Should have worked harder to elect someone like Ron Paul.
an ink dot on himalayas, when compared to unjust profits of telecom vultures
I assume they get to write off 700K as losses when filing federal taxes? Plus another 2-3 million as a cost of locating and refunding the affected customers, so that the penalty is fully offset by a decreased tax liability.
Slashdot Mirror
No it won't. The Constitution is just about meaningless these days.
It's not that it is meaningless -- sadly, Constitution just needs to be interpreted. I think the judges are really phoning it in.
For example "right against unreasonable searches" basically hinges on the meaning of "unreasonable". If a judge agrees that "police wanted to do it" means "reasonable", then Constitution won't protect you at all
Same with "cruel and unusual" punishment. As long as no punishment (e.g., 2 million fine for 10 songs) is recognized as "cruel and unusual", then Constitution does not apply
Maybe it's because when Bush was president and something like this is proposed, we heard repeatedly how evil Bush was. Now that Obama is president
Obama turned out out just as evil as Bush in a number of ways.
and this is a bill by a Democrat introduced into a Democrat led Senate, all we hear is that both parties are the same.
Both parties are _not_ the same but they seem to have come to a silent agreement on 80% of the issues, which does not bode well for us. They likely agreed before, but I think they used to be more circumspect about agreeing so much.
Maybe everyone should go back and look at the vote they cast a couple of weeks ago and wonder if they made the right decision.
Yeah, the two-party choice is the bad thing here. No, the vote cast a couple of weeks ago was still correct, because Romney would do the same things as Obama is doing, plus some other damage on those few issues where they disagree (particularly anything that came from Ryan). The sad part is that these two candidates were the best D/R parties could offer :(
At 20c per message (160 bytes), works out at $1310 of income per megabyte of traffic. for the telcos. Talk about a cash cow.
Not to mention that both the sender and receiver are usually charged 20c for the message. So $2620/MB is the real limit.
Gee let me wear this contraption that will garner all sorts of attention. I can understand someones desire to express his art but to do it in an airport with TSA screeners who are basically highschool push outs is just fucking stupid.
I disagree with you. It is true that he could expect to be searched and tested for explosives for wearing a strange watch. But I still would not expect him to be detained after a further inspection had found no explosives on him.
Also, is he an idiot for wearing thick-soled shoes to the airport as well?
He's doing a valuable service to us -- pointing out how ridiculous things got. A charge of "having wires that may be used to make a bomb" (in a McGyver episode) is now enough to be detained and taken out of the airport into police custody?
With all the bullshit pictures on the linked site, one would think there would be an image of the fucking watch...
That would be like... gasp... distributing pictures of materials that can be potentially used to make a bomb. A lesser offense, but probably enough to get a fine
Not to mention the risks that the terrorists will learn what kind of ornate watches around suspicion and de-assemble their bombs into less suspicious ornate watches
On a serious note -- the guy is still detained, not like they could contact him for comment or pictures
I'll reserve judgement until I see the boots and the watch.
NO! The judgement is complete once they found no trace of explosive materials
Having wires on you or wearing thick shoes is absolutely no reason for being detained. Even if he had an actual bomb timer, that's nothing without a bomb
I hope he sues them
So, I am not an expert on politics, but in the current congress, there 51 democratic senators, 47 republican senators, and 2 independents (both of whom caucus with the democrats). By my count, if every single senate republican voted against this, that still only comes to 47 votes. That means that the other 4 would have had to break ranks with the democratic party. So, just who is at fault here?
Uhm... the party that supplied MOST OF 51 against vote is largely responsible. Certainly if it is 47 Republicans + 4 Democrats are voting against, then it is Republicans who are actually blocking the bill? How else can you interpret it?
Also, everything needs a supermajority nowdays. Republicans block things with less-than-50 votes just fine. Democrats had 58 votes for veterans jobs bill and that amounted to nothing.
End result, data caps and packet snooping so it's a pain in the ass to download ANY large amount of data because we're automatically assumed to be dirty pirates.
I feel your pain, but don't be deluded into thinking that pirates cause data caps
Verizon doesn't want to upgrade their network and supply the bandwidth they actually sold. Overselling is lucrative -- hence the data caps
Also, many providers are paving the way for selling their own streaming services (or partnering with one). Hence, it is nice to have strict caps and then say "oh, and OUR service does not count towards your cap".
People should buy digital content now that it is sometimes available in a convenient form. But don't think for a second that doing so will stop all this bandwidth cap bullshit. We need competition -- having multiple alternative ISP services available would be a good start. Over last decade, I usually had 1 choice available to me, sometimes 2 (cable and DSL).
What are the chances that this will simply be used to target anyone who uses the bandwidth they paid for?
Not to mention the lucrative $35 review fees involved. It's a win-win for Verizon.
Soon this will turn into highly desirable insurance -- i.e. "pay extra $10/month and we will protect you from lawsuits by not releasing your info". (or at least actually fight for you in court before releasing it)
I suppose we are set to see a Cybersecurity Agency with powers to monitor everything and permaban people from the internet based on anonymous accusations like the no-flight lists? What's the worst that could happen?
Imagine how useful they would be with proper inter-agency information sharing rules!
Now, if FBI wants to bust that file sharer and can't get access to their information, they could just ask the CyberAgency to help them out.
After all, the majority of the PATRIOT act provisions are often applied to anti-drug busts since PATRIOT provisions are just easier to use than regular laws. Who cares if it was developed as a response to terrorists...
sometimes it's seen to be desirable to have a crisis so that more power can be seized during the emotional response than would be possible at any other time.
Sadly, it seems like "terrorists are out to get us" is a catch-all condition that works on anything now.
Drone bombing programs in various countries and "kill list" were deployed simply because of the teh evilz terorrizst, with no particular event to back that up. A crisis is no longer necessary.
He has also posted numerous poll about the majority of Americans think the TSA does a good job (like 52% majority).
They should run a poll that asks Name one useful security measure perpetrated by TSA.
Or Name one incident where TSA had stopped a terrorist attack
See if they can get 52% majority on that... I don't even know what a "good job" means. A good job of what??
seems they are consistently boorish, idiotic in rulemaking, inconsistent, and being called out as leaders in group comedy, instead of as an effective security force.
You are missing the most important part
There are NO demonstrable results that anyone in TSA could show for the last 11 years. The 2-3 half-assed terrorist attempts (shoe bomber, etc.) have been stopped by other passengers. TSA accomplishments are rivaled only by the anti-terrorist rock (though TSA is significantly more expensive)
I asked this before and I will ask again -- how does an agency exist/expand/get funding without demonstrating any results whatsoever? One could dislike CIA/FBI/IRS, but one could at least point to something beneficial that they actually do.
You hear the bipartsianship from the GOP?
No, not recently.
It just went away with comments like yours. No one will ever work with the DNC because their attitude is just like yours.
Not true.
GOP does not work with DNC because compromises are viewed as a sign of weakness and encouragment for Obama/Democrats.
Also, if Republicans and Democrats ever accomplished something good together, Democrats may claim credit for this. Republicans strive to avoid such outcome at all costs
At best they'll get a response that says the whitehouse cannot respond for whatever reason they figure is vague enough not to be offensive to anyone at the time.
Oh, not at all!
Sometimes they are fine with offending, too
The director of TSA writing an answer to "Abolish TSA" petition is the best example. He didn't even feel the need to _pretend_. The answer didn't say:
We heard your complaints and while we will not abolish the TSA, we will strive to improve and fix things
Instead, the answer said:
TSA is the awesomest thing ever and by the way here's our exciting plan for next 10 years. It really did look like he copy-pasted it from the brochure "Is TSA awesome or is TSA super-awesome? - you decide."
Congress is supposed to regulate war, actually. The only reason Obama goes on with wars/drone strikes is because Congress is staying out of it - uniformly so on both R-side and D-side.
If Congress is "staying out of it", then he has no authority to do it. The fact that Congress isn't doing anything about it doesn't grant him implicit authority to do so.
You have no idea how much I agree with you. I was just saying that if Republicans were interested in stopping Obama for the good of the country (which is your assertion), they would be fighting this one. It is a weak defense, but still -- it is indeed harder for Democrats to lead the opposition to what Obama does. You'd think it would be easier for Republicans.
If Obama wants to get some law passed, he has to give up something else of greater value. Want to pass a carbon tax? Repeal Obamacare. Want to raise taxes? Make big cuts in entitlements. That's the kind of deals he can get. Other "deals" are simply not interesting to his political opponents, and why should they be?
Fair enough. I would like to focus on the 2nd one here ("Want to raise taxes?"). During the last negotiation they could not agree because no matter what was offered, Republicans made a pledge to NOT RAISE TAXES. They negotiated and negotiated, but Republicans were not able to actually raise taxes. The best they could offer is to say that once taxes are cut, economy will improve and lower taxes will bring in extra money. Even if true, you agree that this is a laughable "concession", right?
It's not even a question of whether Democrats have offered enough. At no point was there a counter offer from Republicans that involved anything that looked like raising taxes. Not even at a 99%/1% balance. You are clearly a reasonable person, so your position on this is - negotiate and get more than 50% of the deal. That's fine. But due to their ridiculous pledge, Republicans could not even offer 1% concession, perhaps you missed that? And they made no secret of that either.
The funniest thing is that they were never talking about raising taxes (I don't think) as much as letting tax cuts expire. If Republicans wanted to permanently lower taxes, they should have not been invading Iraq... that cost money.
Your view that doing nothing amounts to "letting the country burn" is itself a very left wing political view.
We do not have a left wing in US. We have a moderate-right wing and a far-far-right wing.
So from the point of view of his political opponents, stopping him at every turn isn't "letting the country burn", it is preventing legislation that would harm the country.
Republicans did manage to block a bill that would fund jobs for veterans on the reasoning that we have no money. Unless these Republicans voted against the wars (very few!), that makes them hypocritical to the extreme.
Obama can spend less, regulate less, withdraw the military, stop engaging in wars or drone strikes, and stop violating civil liberties all on his own without any help from Congress.
Congress is supposed to regulate war, actually. The only reason Obama goes on with wars/drone strikes is because Congress is staying out of it - uniformly so on both R-side and D-side.
Also, Obama cannot spend or regulate or even violate civil liberties -- just about every one of those things (except for "kill list") had passed through Congress.
If Obama wants to negotiate over this, he needs to bring something to the table that his political opponents want, and there is very little that he can offer.
Republicans _could_ come up with something as part of the negotiation. They must want something (and they should be willing to give something in return). If their offer is "here's what we want to do and there is no room for compromise", why should Democrats bargain with them? Would you?
I don't see why. If the GOP meets Obama part way, Obama will just push the envelope even further,
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem in a nutshell
The position here is -- If GOP were to ever compromise, even a little bit, they would show weakness and embolden Obama. So the solution is, clearly, to block everything and let the country burn.
One cannot negotiate when ANY compromise is considered an unacceptable sign of weakness. Can you come up with a reason why would Democrats just give up? It's not really a negotiation when one side is not willing to budge an inch, no matter what. The term for that is "throwing a tantrum"
Instead of providing a salary that your workers will inevitably waste on unnecessary items like iPhones and designer shirts
Hehe, also, Foxconn would be out of luck if the workers no longer had money on unnecessary items like iPhones.
Not sure if Foxconn makes designer shirts.
If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.
You do realize that the comparison refers to things like "influence on the world"/success and not on personal qualities?
From what I understand, Steve Jobs was also not the nicest person you ever met - but that's not really relevant, unless Elon Musk's personality is being compared.
Does it bother anyone... ....that candidates are winning elections via data mining versus appealing to people with ideas?
It seems like Wall Street's version of capitalism -- just focus on the numbers, not on making a newer widget, and we can manipulate our way to victory.
Yes, yes it does.
But then Obama had manipulated his way to victory by making "idea" promises too, 4 years ago. He promised to undo most of questionable Bush-administration tactics, but instead he expanded on (most of) them.
So yes, they use what they can
When they had a candidate with very little record on issues, he ran on ideas that appealed to people. Never mind that he turned around and did the opposite for a shocking number of promises right away. Not "tried to follow up and failed" but "did the exact opposite right away"
Now that they have a candidate with 4 years of public record, they ran on data-mining numbers and "Romney will be worse for the country" instead
Anything to win, there are no honorable political campaigns, at least not on that level.
Plus he seemed to have lost a huge amount of the support he had in 2008.
Maybe that's because he had done a 180 degree turn on most of his promises? The ones that got that huge amount of support in 2008? Campaigning on "change and hope" was no longer possible, since we now have 4 years of actual record.
a win is a win... but looking at it objectively a sigh of relief is more appropriate than a cry of victory.
Republicans had a chance, but they needed a stronger candidate. Why is it so hard to find one strong candidate? I mean, look at who Romney was competing against at the end -- Gingrich, McCain, Santorum...
Fines would mean crap to companies and individuals alike if they were levied as a percentage of income instead of a flat amount. Is there any good reason why it isn't done this way?
Yes! Yes, there is. According to this article, AT&T paid zero taxes (received subsidies, even) in 2011, which means they probably had near zero official income in 2011.
Maybe you can't pull such crap in UK, but in US percentage of corporation income is not the way to go.
Welcome to obamaworld
Indeed.
I am certain that Romney would make it his first act in the office to loosen the copyright/IP witchhunt. It was totally the election between pro-buisness Obama vs the liberal candidate Romney
Should have worked harder to elect someone like Ron Paul.
an ink dot on himalayas, when compared to unjust profits of telecom vultures
I assume they get to write off 700K as losses when filing federal taxes? Plus another 2-3 million as a cost of locating and refunding the affected customers, so that the penalty is fully offset by a decreased tax liability.