if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house.
It is no longer standard to physically disconnect the cable. The service is all controlled by smart devices and encrypted (for Comcast, certainly). It costs way too much to have someone actually come around the house to make a change anymore. They want to avoid having to do that. The industry was consistently burned by "pencil-whip disconnects" (when the service agent would report the connection was cut when he was really just off drinking coffee), to the point that one cable company I was involved with had to do a physical system-wide inventory of connections and was hindered in prosecuting theft of service because they couldn't prove the thief had re-connected the service and not just innocently plugged into a hot cable.
If the fiber providers would calm the fuck down and offer static IPs without charging $400/month,
Most dynamic IPs are relatively static, and you can get free dynamic DNS to deal with it anyway. If you already have a domain name, you can add the dynamic host name as a cname to your DNS servers, which should be other than your home system anyway.
In practice, the candy bars in the back of the store are sold in packs of 6 or whatever, rather than individually,
Well, yeah. You pay extra for the convenience of buying one instead of six, and it costs the store more because they have to deal with individual sales instead of a single larger package. There's also more theft and damage in singles, and the shelf space is more valuable up front where impulse buys are a major factor.
You're comparing apples to oranges. When they are truly equivalent, the UPC and the prices are the same.
Do you have a citation for the costs being lower for single unit sales? The fact that they come in boxes of 24 singles doesn't necessarily mean the overall cost is lower compared to a case of 12 six-bar packs. (And in many stores there are singles in the back, too.)
Usually for a 30% mark up over an equivalent item at the back of the store.
An item's price at the front is going to be the same as its price at the back. The UPC code is the same, and the store has no way of knowing if you picked it up in line or while shopping at the back of the store. They're going to lose money every time someone has to stop the checkout process to say "that's the wrong price" or worse, return the item after it has been purchased.
You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries
There are words you are trying to put in my mouth. "Political adversaries" isn't something I said, it is something you falsely inferred.
So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever.
I didn't have to check anything, and I'm done with you putting words in my mouth.
I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process...
Except you did not do that, because you are wrong. The electors made a pledge to vote for the person who won the state election. That's a fact. If they didn't want to vote for Trump the solution was simple: do not be an elector for Trump. And the process includes state laws that require them to follow their pledge in many states. Trying to get those laws overturned NOW, after the election has been held and everyone voted based on the existing system, is dishonest.
when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context
I elide things that are irrelevant or extraneous, leaving the CONTEXT so you can see what specifically I am replying to. If you want to see the full comment, read the parent. It's there for all to see. That's how it is supposed to work here.
That was not my point, and my statement was true. "Oh really?" is contradiction the truth of a statement, and that's what I've been replying to.
I hope that helps you understand why you are arguing against something nobody else is actually saying.
You have it backwards. People are arguing with me for saying the customer was notified. Other people have actually claimed they were not. Your concept of what "nobody else is saying" is flawed.
You know damn well that the point being made was that DHS did not notify them.
And you know damn well that I never said they did. My statement that the customer was notified was contradicted by someone, and that's what I've been correcting. If you want to make some other point in some other part of the discussion, do so. But don't tell me I'm wrong when I say that the system worked; the company being paid to detect these things did so and notified their customer.
When conducting White Hat penetration testing, it's important to get an official OK to conduct those operations. It is not legal or ethical to conduct them otherwise.
Were I to go back through very old access logs, I could point you to at least one or two Universities that disagree with you. I caught them testing my servers (and a lot of desktop systems) and they didn't have my authorization to do it. No, sorry, authorization from an admin at a different University to scan systems here isn't valid.
And I've caught my own university scanning my home system without my permission. When I reported THAT the response was "meh, so what?".
Like I said, the days of moral outrage over one government agency scanning another one are long gone. If your system faces the public, it faces the public -- all of them.
You don't comprehend well do you? The Brian Kemp knew it was happening because the cyber security provider detected the intrusion.
You don't comprehend well, do you? That's what I said. The third party provider detected the intrusion attempt and notified their customer that it happened.
Not because anyone was notified.
Of course someone was notified. Don't be stupid. Brian Kemp didn't write the letter to DHS based on nothing. His security company NOTIFIED HIM of the event.
In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.
Under a different system we could have had a different result. That's why is it ridiculous to pretend that the results of a different system today mean anything. Ignorant people didn't know what they were doing when they voted; they are not a reason to assume they meant something specific and coerce the result to match. ("Dimpled chads" is one of those kinds of things, too.)
I'll just point out that even the "popular vote" system that the losers want to convert to for this election is a "winner-takes-all" system. It isn't a "coalition government" system where three losers can get together to run the government in place of the candidate with a plurality. And how you'd do a "coalition" president is pretty hard to imagine, but I'm sure if it meant that the current losers got to be in charge, someone will come up with a way.
Brian Kemp issued a letter to Johnson on Thursday after the state's third-party cybersecurity provider detected an IP address from the agency's Southwest D.C. office trying to penetrate the state's firewall.
How do you think Brian Kemp knew it was happening if he, as the head of the agency that is the customer of the third-party security firm, wasn't notified of the attempt?
As I wrote:... the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.
What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job.
Except it isn't obvious, and it isn't the government's 'job'. Looking after the poor and needy is why charities exist.
The reason the charities aren't able to do their job is because of people like you who think their tax dollars are all they need to "give" because "it's the government's job" and donating to charity is just "a tax dodge." I.e., the reason why donations to charity are tax deductible is specifically because the it is their job to help the needy and the government wants to promote that activity.
So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way
It isn't the same. It can matter alot.
First, the company is picking the charity, not you. For example, someone impacted by breast cancer may want to donate to a charity related to that instead of handing more money to schools. I know at least two dozen charities that are more appropriate than throwing more money to my local school district which has already gotten a tax levy to spend $1.2 MILLION on giving students iPads. (I would be VERY unhappy if my employer said they valued my work so much they were going to give more of my money to a "charity" that was already taxing me to do the same thing.)
Second, if you get the money it may put you in a status where it makes sense to itemize, and you may then deduct a lot of things that would otherwise not be deductible. It may increase your giving because you know that you can deduct it.
Third, it will appear on your annual income statements, which are used by the SSA to determine retirement payments, or if a year counts towards retirement at all. It can also have an effect on how much you can borrow as it will be shown as income.
But overall, giving the money to the employee means that the employee chooses where his money goes, not the company. It may help the tax liability of the employee by allowing itemization to increase deductions after donating the money. Or it may simply be a really useful $3000 if it isn't donated.
In either case, it isn't the same thing even if in some cases the ends are the same. The ends don't justify the means.
I'm not sure which is worse:
1. The DHS servers are really botnets
Unlikely.
2. The DHS tried to do this
Sorry, I don't see how this is bad. One government agency that does this pen tested another government agency that had refused "cyber hygiene" support to see if the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.
3. The "DHS servers" likely succeeded else where
Yes, that is second worst of the three, and it and option 1 are truly bad. Then we have option 4: DHS failed elsewhere but the server admins didn't notice.
I run a few servers at a university. I used to catch other universities doing pen testing on my servers. When I reported it I was told this was "official network research" being conducted by those universities and it was ok they were doing it. Not from MY admins, but from the admins at those other universities. No permission was ever asked nor was it granted. Admins at school X were telling their people it was ok to pound on my servers at school Y and my opinion on the matter was irrelevant because it was "research".
The days of outrage over outside groups pen testing servers are long gone.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part.
So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.
When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors
You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.
My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,
Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people challenging Hillary had she won or the other way around. It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.
If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent,
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent", it is a simple statement of fact. I've followed the rules so many times when my favored candidate didn't win that it is simply ridiculous to claim that trying to follow the rules is some political thing.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing.
They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.
any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy
I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?
you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.
You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?
As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.
Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.
I had a bad experience back in 2007 watching JJ's "Star Trek" and my movie-viewing (in-theater) went way down after that.
I had a bad experience watching that movie, too, but it was because of the deliberate lens flare that some moron thought added to the realism and wouldn't destroy the illusion of reality. Every time you can trivially recognize that "there's a camera involved" you lose.
Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?
If the only time your kids see the outside of your house is when you take them to the movies, there's already a problem.
And sure, why shouldn't they learn early how to live inside the same four walls? It will get them ready for when they are unemployed adults living in their parent's basement.
Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.
1. You save a drive, which is time and money.
2. You can watch it without being disturbed by those awful "other people" who might have a cellphone vibrate when they get a message.
3. You can have your cellphone set to play The Star Spangled Banner as a ringtone at full volume and not disturb other people.
4. You can have a beer or wine or hard liquor while watching the movie.
5. You can shag while watching the movie with impunity, barring other legal issues like age or consent.
6. Most important, you can watch the movie in your underwear and scratch whatever parts of your body you want to when you want to.
I think the intent of the question about paying more than a movie ticket price to see a current-run release at home is intended to allow those who to keep up with the water cooler chatter about current events a convenient way of doing that.
Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.
The point was that the foreign earnings were not being tax sheltered by the purchase of government bonds, which is what the summary alleged. But thank you for the correction.
By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds."
The interest on government bonds is tax-free. The money used to buy them is what's left after paying taxes on it. I.e., the earnings were not exempt from taxes because they were used to buy bonds.
Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.
I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.
It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying to change the process after the fact when their candidate loses, but who are otherwise silent when it works out ok for them.
As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:
The "right" of revolution wasn't under discussion. The right of the losers to jump up and down and shout and scream and get their losing candidate put into power in the US system of democracy was. That quote talks about the "power of the people", and this is the system in place, today, to represent those people. A vocal minority who don't like the result don't have the right to change the result, even if they have the right to scream about how the process should be changed.
Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
and I'm only advocating respect
Boo hoo? Ok.
The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.
The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES. Not only did they get the job because they pledged to vote for the candidate they represent, they are, in many cases, required by law to do so.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
who fall victim to your lies
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.
First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.
I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.
The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.
So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.
And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.
If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process
I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.
Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?
Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.
The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.
What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)
Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.
What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?
The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.
I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.
And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.
Slashdot Mirror
if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house.
It is no longer standard to physically disconnect the cable. The service is all controlled by smart devices and encrypted (for Comcast, certainly). It costs way too much to have someone actually come around the house to make a change anymore. They want to avoid having to do that. The industry was consistently burned by "pencil-whip disconnects" (when the service agent would report the connection was cut when he was really just off drinking coffee), to the point that one cable company I was involved with had to do a physical system-wide inventory of connections and was hindered in prosecuting theft of service because they couldn't prove the thief had re-connected the service and not just innocently plugged into a hot cable.
If the fiber providers would calm the fuck down and offer static IPs without charging $400/month,
Most dynamic IPs are relatively static, and you can get free dynamic DNS to deal with it anyway. If you already have a domain name, you can add the dynamic host name as a cname to your DNS servers, which should be other than your home system anyway.
In practice, the candy bars in the back of the store are sold in packs of 6 or whatever, rather than individually,
Well, yeah. You pay extra for the convenience of buying one instead of six, and it costs the store more because they have to deal with individual sales instead of a single larger package. There's also more theft and damage in singles, and the shelf space is more valuable up front where impulse buys are a major factor.
You're comparing apples to oranges. When they are truly equivalent, the UPC and the prices are the same.
Do you have a citation for the costs being lower for single unit sales? The fact that they come in boxes of 24 singles doesn't necessarily mean the overall cost is lower compared to a case of 12 six-bar packs. (And in many stores there are singles in the back, too.)
Usually for a 30% mark up over an equivalent item at the back of the store.
An item's price at the front is going to be the same as its price at the back. The UPC code is the same, and the store has no way of knowing if you picked it up in line or while shopping at the back of the store. They're going to lose money every time someone has to stop the checkout process to say "that's the wrong price" or worse, return the item after it has been purchased.
You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries
There are words you are trying to put in my mouth. "Political adversaries" isn't something I said, it is something you falsely inferred.
So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever.
I didn't have to check anything, and I'm done with you putting words in my mouth.
I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process...
Except you did not do that, because you are wrong. The electors made a pledge to vote for the person who won the state election. That's a fact. If they didn't want to vote for Trump the solution was simple: do not be an elector for Trump. And the process includes state laws that require them to follow their pledge in many states. Trying to get those laws overturned NOW, after the election has been held and everyone voted based on the existing system, is dishonest.
when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context
I elide things that are irrelevant or extraneous, leaving the CONTEXT so you can see what specifically I am replying to. If you want to see the full comment, read the parent. It's there for all to see. That's how it is supposed to work here.
While true, that's not the point.
That was not my point, and my statement was true. "Oh really?" is contradiction the truth of a statement, and that's what I've been replying to.
I hope that helps you understand why you are arguing against something nobody else is actually saying.
You have it backwards. People are arguing with me for saying the customer was notified. Other people have actually claimed they were not. Your concept of what "nobody else is saying" is flawed.
You know damn well that the point being made was that DHS did not notify them.
And you know damn well that I never said they did. My statement that the customer was notified was contradicted by someone, and that's what I've been correcting. If you want to make some other point in some other part of the discussion, do so. But don't tell me I'm wrong when I say that the system worked; the company being paid to detect these things did so and notified their customer.
When conducting White Hat penetration testing, it's important to get an official OK to conduct those operations. It is not legal or ethical to conduct them otherwise.
Were I to go back through very old access logs, I could point you to at least one or two Universities that disagree with you. I caught them testing my servers (and a lot of desktop systems) and they didn't have my authorization to do it. No, sorry, authorization from an admin at a different University to scan systems here isn't valid.
And I've caught my own university scanning my home system without my permission. When I reported THAT the response was "meh, so what?".
Like I said, the days of moral outrage over one government agency scanning another one are long gone. If your system faces the public, it faces the public -- all of them.
You don't comprehend well do you? The Brian Kemp knew it was happening because the cyber security provider detected the intrusion.
You don't comprehend well, do you? That's what I said. The third party provider detected the intrusion attempt and notified their customer that it happened.
Not because anyone was notified.
Of course someone was notified. Don't be stupid. Brian Kemp didn't write the letter to DHS based on nothing. His security company NOTIFIED HIM of the event.
In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.
Under a different system we could have had a different result. That's why is it ridiculous to pretend that the results of a different system today mean anything. Ignorant people didn't know what they were doing when they voted; they are not a reason to assume they meant something specific and coerce the result to match. ("Dimpled chads" is one of those kinds of things, too.)
I'll just point out that even the "popular vote" system that the losers want to convert to for this election is a "winner-takes-all" system. It isn't a "coalition government" system where three losers can get together to run the government in place of the candidate with a plurality. And how you'd do a "coalition" president is pretty hard to imagine, but I'm sure if it meant that the current losers got to be in charge, someone will come up with a way.
and the customer was notified of the attempt.
Oh really?
You don't read even the summary, do you?
Brian Kemp issued a letter to Johnson on Thursday after the state's third-party cybersecurity provider detected an IP address from the agency's Southwest D.C. office trying to penetrate the state's firewall. How do you think Brian Kemp knew it was happening if he, as the head of the agency that is the customer of the third-party security firm, wasn't notified of the attempt?
As I wrote: ... the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.
What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job.
Except it isn't obvious, and it isn't the government's 'job'. Looking after the poor and needy is why charities exist.
The reason the charities aren't able to do their job is because of people like you who think their tax dollars are all they need to "give" because "it's the government's job" and donating to charity is just "a tax dodge." I.e., the reason why donations to charity are tax deductible is specifically because the it is their job to help the needy and the government wants to promote that activity.
So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way
It isn't the same. It can matter alot.
First, the company is picking the charity, not you. For example, someone impacted by breast cancer may want to donate to a charity related to that instead of handing more money to schools. I know at least two dozen charities that are more appropriate than throwing more money to my local school district which has already gotten a tax levy to spend $1.2 MILLION on giving students iPads. (I would be VERY unhappy if my employer said they valued my work so much they were going to give more of my money to a "charity" that was already taxing me to do the same thing.)
Second, if you get the money it may put you in a status where it makes sense to itemize, and you may then deduct a lot of things that would otherwise not be deductible. It may increase your giving because you know that you can deduct it.
Third, it will appear on your annual income statements, which are used by the SSA to determine retirement payments, or if a year counts towards retirement at all. It can also have an effect on how much you can borrow as it will be shown as income.
But overall, giving the money to the employee means that the employee chooses where his money goes, not the company. It may help the tax liability of the employee by allowing itemization to increase deductions after donating the money. Or it may simply be a really useful $3000 if it isn't donated.
In either case, it isn't the same thing even if in some cases the ends are the same. The ends don't justify the means.
I'm not sure which is worse: 1. The DHS servers are really botnets
Unlikely.
2. The DHS tried to do this
Sorry, I don't see how this is bad. One government agency that does this pen tested another government agency that had refused "cyber hygiene" support to see if the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.
3. The "DHS servers" likely succeeded else where
Yes, that is second worst of the three, and it and option 1 are truly bad. Then we have option 4: DHS failed elsewhere but the server admins didn't notice.
I run a few servers at a university. I used to catch other universities doing pen testing on my servers. When I reported it I was told this was "official network research" being conducted by those universities and it was ok they were doing it. Not from MY admins, but from the admins at those other universities. No permission was ever asked nor was it granted. Admins at school X were telling their people it was ok to pound on my servers at school Y and my opinion on the matter was irrelevant because it was "research" .
The days of outrage over outside groups pen testing servers are long gone.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part.
So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.
When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors
You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.
My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,
Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people challenging Hillary had she won or the other way around. It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.
If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent,
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent", it is a simple statement of fact. I've followed the rules so many times when my favored candidate didn't win that it is simply ridiculous to claim that trying to follow the rules is some political thing.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing.
They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.
any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy
I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?
you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.
You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?
As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.
Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.
Signed,
The ABC Grinch
I had a bad experience back in 2007 watching JJ's "Star Trek" and my movie-viewing (in-theater) went way down after that.
I had a bad experience watching that movie, too, but it was because of the deliberate lens flare that some moron thought added to the realism and wouldn't destroy the illusion of reality. Every time you can trivially recognize that "there's a camera involved" you lose.
Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?
If the only time your kids see the outside of your house is when you take them to the movies, there's already a problem.
And sure, why shouldn't they learn early how to live inside the same four walls? It will get them ready for when they are unemployed adults living in their parent's basement.
Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.
1. You save a drive, which is time and money.
2. You can watch it without being disturbed by those awful "other people" who might have a cellphone vibrate when they get a message.
3. You can have your cellphone set to play The Star Spangled Banner as a ringtone at full volume and not disturb other people.
4. You can have a beer or wine or hard liquor while watching the movie.
5. You can shag while watching the movie with impunity, barring other legal issues like age or consent.
6. Most important, you can watch the movie in your underwear and scratch whatever parts of your body you want to when you want to.
I think the intent of the question about paying more than a movie ticket price to see a current-run release at home is intended to allow those who to keep up with the water cooler chatter about current events a convenient way of doing that.
Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.
The point was that the foreign earnings were not being tax sheltered by the purchase of government bonds, which is what the summary alleged. But thank you for the correction.
By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds."
The interest on government bonds is tax-free. The money used to buy them is what's left after paying taxes on it. I.e., the earnings were not exempt from taxes because they were used to buy bonds.
And "yawn."
All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it,
Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.
I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.
It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying to change the process after the fact when their candidate loses, but who are otherwise silent when it works out ok for them.
As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:
The "right" of revolution wasn't under discussion. The right of the losers to jump up and down and shout and scream and get their losing candidate put into power in the US system of democracy was. That quote talks about the "power of the people", and this is the system in place, today, to represent those people. A vocal minority who don't like the result don't have the right to change the result, even if they have the right to scream about how the process should be changed.
Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
and I'm only advocating respect
Boo hoo? Ok.
The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.
The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES. Not only did they get the job because they pledged to vote for the candidate they represent, they are, in many cases, required by law to do so.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
who fall victim to your lies
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.
First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.
I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.
The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.
So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.
And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.
If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process
I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.
So "boohoo" yourself.
Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?
Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.
The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.
What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)
Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.
What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?
The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.
The only election that counts has not occurred.
I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.
And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.