Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Fair use is one of the later sections, but fair use does not include a complete copy made for personal use. So, yes, copyright law does appear to make it illegal to "copy for your own use", since the author has the exclusive right to "do and authorize" reproduction of the work.
But then, IANAL, and there may be a small clause in one of the exemption sections that does make it legal.
Enough people do it to make it worthwhile for Lexus to run the ad.
Similar to spammers, who only need a pitifully small response to profit. This advertising system will be hated by most, but will have a significant enough return that it will, indeed, be profitable.
I actually had someone tell me that they respond to about 5% of the unsolicited junk mail they get, as long as the price is right.
Nextel walky-talky still needs a cell tower... how else could they work over hundreds of miles on a few milliwatts?
To me it looks like someone holding their collar up to hide their face, who stops in-frame to look at the camera to see if they've gotten out-of-frame yet.
Why yes, I keep complete and accurate lists of every union member who has tried to take advantage of the "opt out" laws regarding political campaign spending. It's right here next to my photos of the inside of Area 51 hangers and my copy of the Q'ran translated into Hebrew.
Given that the unions are bad at separating the expenses into the necessary categories, and that those who do support the political causes the union gives money to will be unhappy with anyone who cuts back on the available money, it is not hard to understand that there will be repercussions for anyone who tries, and those who don't suffer any are lucky. Mostly lucky that their co-workers don't know they did it.
Let's assume that the eventual abolishment of all unions has already happened...
If you are going to assume something that will never happen, we might as well assume that the deficit is gone, everyone makes a million dollars a year, and that there is peace and joy all over the planet with no hunger and no pestilence. Gitmo is closed, we're out of Iraq/Afghanistan completely, Hamas and Israel are buddies, nobody ties bombs to their children and sends them to the local markets or on the bus, and sea levels/climate changes are stable and nonthreatening.
There aren't "very few unions left", and they will never be fully abolished. It would require a complete rewrite to the US Constitution for such a prohibition to occur.
But this is wandering far afield from my original comment. I was pointing out that if corporations do not have the right to donate money to political causes, then unions should lack the same right and have the same controls. That is an argument neither for nor against corporate/union campaign contributions, just an argument that the color you paint one naturally paints the other.
How do you feel about this law? Comfortable with it?
The law abolishing unions? Won't happen. There are too many unions and too much union money in play for that to ever happen.
Did you not notice how the UAW managed to get paid off by Mr. Obama at the expense of every stockholder in GM? There are a lot more stockholders of GM (and some of them are VERY rich) than there are union members. If the corporation was in charge, it wouldn't have happened.
Corporations with "freedom of religious expression" make me a little scared (could be an interesting end run around civil rights legislation),...
How so? Do you understand that there are corporations that are based on religion operations? How does the freedom of expression of a corporation in any way limit your civil rights?
It's not a big logical step from there to "Corporations have the right to bear arms". That's a scary idea.
How, exactly, does a "corporation" bear arms? Do you mean the people working at a corporation? Yes, they still have their individual rights. They do not lose their inalienable rights when they are hired.
Do you mean "bear arms as part of the corporate operation"? Briggs and Wells Fargo and other armored car services come to mind as corporations that "bear arms" in that sense. Do those corporations scare you? I don't believe that the individuals in that corporation bear arms in violation to laws applicable to individuals, but I can't testify to that. I'm rarely scared by a passing fellow with a gun and a moneybag. YMMV.
Or do you mean the corporation can "bear arms" in some other way? The Remington corporation comes to mind as a corporation that "bears arms" in a generic way -- boxes and boxes and boxes of guns sitting in warehouses. So too, Walmart, K-Mart, Bi-Mart, Gander Mountain, and any other retail corporation that stocks them.
Slippery slope arguments are often silly and convoluted, but in this case it's really *not* a huge jump from "Corporations have *this* Constitutional Right" to "Corporations have all Constitutional rights". One really does imply the other.
I am most disturbed not by the idea that corporations have the rights, but the idea that it is a "slippery slope" to think that having one right means one has them all. Yes, having one right means one has them all. That's part of them being "inalienable".
...(I mean, they're not cognizant sent entities with a single opinion),...
It is a rare human being who has "a single opinion", or even unchangeable opinions. If we make a "unified, consistent set of opinions" a litmus test for having rights, we've removed any concept of "inalienable" or even "rights".
And, if we make "unified opinion" a litmus test for "corporate" rights, we eliminate trade unions from the playing field of political speech, since the members of such unions rarely, if ever, have a single opinion about any political action.
You're resting on the assumption that all groupings of people are created equal.
Far from it. That is why I did not say one word about voluntary collaborations of people formed for specifically political purposes.
Unions are, for the most part, involuntary groupings formed based on employment or occupation, having no political purpose behind them. No, "collective bargaining" is not a political purpose, it is a commercial one.
... and in particular an individual's right to expression cannot be exercised by leveraging corporate assets to which he or she might have access.
Then the same rules should apply to an individual who has access to union dues. Those are just as much "corporate assets" as "company money", and in many cases less so. If I own a company then those corporate assets are, indeed, mine.
Each corporation has a stated purpose for existing...
Just as each union has.
... its assets are held to be used only in acceptable ways to advance that purpose,
That's your opinion, but not the law. I suggest you contact Ben and Jerry's and tell them that their donations to civic causes are not allowed because they do not fall within the scope of "ice cream business". Or Progressive Insurance, which has that name not because they sell progressive insurance.
... and the government has every right and interest in constraining what ways are acceptable.
Again, your opinion. In my opinion, the government has no right, and indeed no Constitutional authority, to tell me that I cannot spend the corporate assets of a company I own in any way I see fit. And for the potential pedant, I'll add "that is legal for any other citizen to spend his money."
The thing that makes this ruling by the Supreme Court so outrageous on its face is that corporations simply don't have "rights". They have the legal privilege of acting in business matters as a person. That is all.
Corporations, as an entity made up of people, have just as many rights to speech as any other "entity made up of people". Trade unions, for example.
If the National Education Association can dump tons of money into campaigns, and the SEIU (Oregon state employee union), and the UAW, then so should GM and other corporations be able to do so.
We currently have an incumbent who is painting his opponent as "bought and paid for" because his campaign got a few thousand from a company while the rest of his money came in $100 and similar donations from a large number of people. The incumbent, however, is backed by many of the large unions and has gotten the vast majority of his money from them. Bought and paid for, he says?
Now, you may claim that the unions are speaking with the voice of the members, but that is far from true. They speak with the voice of the leadership. The members are lucky if they can get their politically-based dues back without repercussions.
I said "you shouldn't need to add it to the language syntax",
That's right, but that's not the part of your statement I replied to. I quoted it for you so you'd know. The part I replied to was that you "should be able to... use the security labeling available in the native OS."
In response to that "should", I replied that it is a MUST. The OS MUST be where the security takes place, for the trivial reasons I provided. Why are you arguing with me?
I do have to admit, I'm human. Whenever I see a.com domain walking down the street, I get a bit worried. Sometimes I cross the street until he goes past. If I see one get on an airplane I'm getting on, my heartbeat goes up a few notches and I call my wife and kids in the few remaining minutes before the door closes to say I love them and I'll try to come home safe.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a call coming in from Vivian Schiller, and then I need to get ready for my daily news report for NPR.
...you should be able to code it into the virtual machine and use the security labeling available in the native OS.
No, this REQUIRES the native OS to cooperate to be successful.
According to the summary, the security policy is enforced by the COMPILER. That means if you change the access policy to a data file, you need to RECOMPILE all the code that touches that data, since the access is compiled in. At least, if the summary is correct, you do.
Further, this is like saying "I'm going to build the most secure Perl compiler ever seen by man. It won't let nobody look at nothing they ain't authorized to look at", and then forget that all your data can be copied to a thumbdrive using 'cp' and displayed using 'od' (or maybe even vi!).
Well, if not teabaggers, per se, then definitely libertarians.
Well, if your first lie gets exposed, change what you meant to say and maybe nobody will point out that it is a lie, too.
Nobody said "no regulations."
I'm not validating the argument, just pointing out that they are, indeed, advocating for a lack of regulations.
Fewer regulations is not the same as none.
Notice that the Bush tax cuts were in effect for a while before the housing bubble burst, and yet there was minimal (if any) job growth.
And notice that the Daddy Government threw billions of dollars into the economy and we're still not producing jobs, even though the promise was that we'd not get above 8%. Guess what people are looking forward to? The tax cuts going away. If you think business people are not planning more than six months in advance, you are a moron.
The biggest growth in history of the US took place when the top tax rates were cut. Moving them back up when we desperately need growth again is just lunacy. Inciting class warfare is one way of keeping people in control -- divide and conquer.
And jobs in companies owned by the richer ones? Yep...the poor are subserviant to the rich, and the rich have zero incentive for the poor to become rich.
Other than by having money the "poor" are better consumers and buy more things. It's not a zero sum game.
You are right though...reduce a company's tax burden and their revenues go up. Not their headcount...
Yes, when a company has extra money, they do tend to buy more equipment and people to run it, and are able to pay higher salaries.
Which in turn go to dividends that make the rich investors richer.
And by "rich investors", you mean everyone who has a investment retirement account. Do you think I'm rich? I'm not. I do have a considerable amount of money in the stock market because I've been working here for a long time and it has accumulated. I'm a "rich investor", according to you.
Oh, and there are plenty of Average Americans that are teabaggers. Reading comprehension FTW - I said they won't benefit from the tax cutting proposals of the Tea Party...
There are LOTS of normal people in the Tea Party who will benefit from lower taxes. Especially the continuation of the Bush cuts. You don't have to make $250k+ a year. Your insults are unwarranted.
You know what *I* would support? Flat Tax. Every man, woman, and child pays x% of their income to taxes. Make it so the first $50,000 or so earned is non-taxable entirely, and then you pay.
First you say "flat", and then you start making exemptions. How about mortgage deductions for poor people? Stop those? Medical deductions? Stop those too?
Google paying 2% income tax vs my 30% IS NOT FAIR.
Google is a CORPORATION, you are a person. Google is made up of people, all of whom pay taxes on their income.
But the teabaggers want lower taxes...not fair taxes,
Your continued insults are not supporting your arguments. The Tea Party members want lower taxes and fair taxes... it's just that YOU don't agree with what they think is fair. That doesn't mean they are asking for unfair taxes. I'd be wasting my time if I argued that YOU were demanding unfair taxes, so why do you continue this tack?
Because noting pisses off a conservative with balls in his mouth more than having to give up a goddamned dollar to anyone but themself.
Yep, I guess it't not worth the effort of talking to you because you can't stop being deliberately insulting. Also, you are lying again.
He also admitted that he knew that increasing the rates on the "rich" would mean lower revenues. He said he'd do it because it was "fair". He doesn't care if there is a budget shortfall, or that by cutting the taxes on those who pay the most you actually get more money out of them overall, he's willing to cut off OUR noses to spite OUR faces.
As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare, state taxes, and consumption taxes.
Which are not income taxes, which they pay 0.
Anyone who supports extending the Bush tax cuts but fails to support extending the Making Work Pay tax cut is doing exactly what we are accusing you of doing, namely, wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes.
That's a lie. You can't "keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes" because they are not the only ones who pay taxes, and they aren't the ones who pay federal income taxes at all.
You refuse to understand the difference between a tax cut and patent welfare. A tax cut means you give less of what you have worked to earn to other people; welfare means other people are giving the money they earned to you. The "Bush tax cuts" are tax cuts. "Maying Work Pay" is welfare. The former deals with money you've earned, the latter with money you are being handed for doing nothing.
...a tax cut which has no effect on said poor and stupid people
Really? Those "poor and stupid people", as you put it, don't get tax credits (handouts) from the tax revenues paid by the richer ones? They don't have jobs in companies owned by the richer ones?
Every time the tax rates are lowered, the revenues go up. Even John Kennedy figured this out when he did it.
Tax cuts are good for the economy as a whole, and for the US government in particular, since it means that the people who earn the money get to keep more of it and the government actually gets more, too.
... lets face it, there are no "normal" Americans in the teabaggers that are remotely effected by this plan.
There are lots of normal Americans in the Tea Party movement, and your insults do nothing to further your arguments.
Individual "poor people" pay minimal taxes. The problem is, right now, that millions of poor people paying very little + millions of middle-Americans paying a little more then very little collectively are paying WAY MORE tax proportionatly compared to these giant corporate entities that fuck their way out of paying billions of dollars a year.
The actual numbers contradict you. The upper income brackets pay much more proportionally than the lower ones. The lowest brackets pay ZERO -- and then get welfare payments called "EIC" or other credits so they actually get money.
The thing is, these teabaggers are also advocating essentially no regulations on business,
That's a lie.
Basically, they're a bunch of fucks paying the lowest tax rates in decades pissed off that taxes are too high
That the rates might be the "lowest in decades" doesn't mean they aren't still too high. And most of the "fucks" pay nothing at all already and still complain about taxes. The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.
Because it seems every time there are tax cuts, they somehow benefit the people (or corporations) making the largest amounts of money the most.
Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with. If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.
It is impossible to enact a tax cut for people who already pay no taxes, and that's nearly 50% of the people in the US already.
Your statement is a tautology. A 5% across the board tax cut will save 50% of the people -- the poor -- nothing at all, while it will save those who pay a lot of taxes a lot. And those in the middle save in the middle.
The reason a national heritage person gave me for the ban in one of the old houses we visited, right after I had taken a picture, was that they were trying to prevent criminals from making up photo catalogs of the knick-knacks. They said that there had been blokes making up figurative "wish lists" of piccys, so less-than-scrupulous collectors could say "I'd like one of those and two of those" and hire someone to break in to steal it.
It sucks. I hate this dynamic index and can't get back to the classic (plain text) index.
Me, too. Once you preview, you have to click another buttong to fix any typos, and then preview again before posting.
What's worse is that moderation selections take effect immediately. I used to be able to moderate as I read through the comments, and if I really needed to moderate something near the bottom I could go back up and remove the moderation from an earlier comment and then submit them all at the same time. Now I hesitate to moderate anything because I know the choice is unrevokable once selected. Bad design.
... there's enough evidence from both sides of that he-said/she-said debacle that no one (outside of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, themselves) will ever know if anything untoward ever really happened.
Actually, the problem is that there is NO evidence for either side. Something one person said to another in a room where there were only those two people and no recordings made is the definition of a "he said/she said". Certainly when the allegation was about something that happened years ago, you cannot know.
I think what is more telling is the reaction of Ms. Hill to the phone message, as an indication of how she interprets statements made to her. A simple "I'd like you to think about apologizing" became an earth-shattering crisis, reported to the FBI for some reason. I cannot think of any law that was broken by Thomas's wife leaving such a message. One phone call in how many years is certainly not harassment by any definition of the term.
What I see is a person who made a really outrageous interpretation of a simple statement today, which would support the idea that maybe she made the same kind of misinterpretation years ago. Maybe. We'll never know.
What we do know is that the matter has become a fire again due to Ms. Hill. I mean, who would doubt that Mrs. Thomas would believe Ms. Hill was not telling the truth? The fact that she made a statement to that effect is, well, hardly newsworthy. I think Ms. Hill is smart enough to know that Thomas's wife thinks she lied, so hearing this opinion would have been no surprise. Had Ms. Hill simply erased the message (as I am forced to erase messages from politicians and "pollsters" thanks to the politicians writing themselves an exemption from the DNC list) nobody would have known it existed. Or cared.
Slashdot Mirror
From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/, under Chapter 1:
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Fair use is one of the later sections, but fair use does not include a complete copy made for personal use. So, yes, copyright law does appear to make it illegal to "copy for your own use", since the author has the exclusive right to "do and authorize" reproduction of the work.
But then, IANAL, and there may be a small clause in one of the exemption sections that does make it legal.
I don't believe you.
Raise your hands, everyone who read that as Large Hardon Collider. Ok, raise your free hand.
Similar to spammers, who only need a pitifully small response to profit. This advertising system will be hated by most, but will have a significant enough return that it will, indeed, be profitable.
I actually had someone tell me that they respond to about 5% of the unsolicited junk mail they get, as long as the price is right.
Doesn't make anyone but Trader Joe's or Wild By Nature or Whole Foods a ton of money, you mean.
To me it looks like someone holding their collar up to hide their face, who stops in-frame to look at the camera to see if they've gotten out-of-frame yet.
Given that the unions are bad at separating the expenses into the necessary categories, and that those who do support the political causes the union gives money to will be unhappy with anyone who cuts back on the available money, it is not hard to understand that there will be repercussions for anyone who tries, and those who don't suffer any are lucky. Mostly lucky that their co-workers don't know they did it.
If you are going to assume something that will never happen, we might as well assume that the deficit is gone, everyone makes a million dollars a year, and that there is peace and joy all over the planet with no hunger and no pestilence. Gitmo is closed, we're out of Iraq/Afghanistan completely, Hamas and Israel are buddies, nobody ties bombs to their children and sends them to the local markets or on the bus, and sea levels/climate changes are stable and nonthreatening.
There aren't "very few unions left", and they will never be fully abolished. It would require a complete rewrite to the US Constitution for such a prohibition to occur.
But this is wandering far afield from my original comment. I was pointing out that if corporations do not have the right to donate money to political causes, then unions should lack the same right and have the same controls. That is an argument neither for nor against corporate/union campaign contributions, just an argument that the color you paint one naturally paints the other.
How do you feel about this law? Comfortable with it?
The law abolishing unions? Won't happen. There are too many unions and too much union money in play for that to ever happen.
Did you not notice how the UAW managed to get paid off by Mr. Obama at the expense of every stockholder in GM? There are a lot more stockholders of GM (and some of them are VERY rich) than there are union members. If the corporation was in charge, it wouldn't have happened.
How so? Do you understand that there are corporations that are based on religion operations? How does the freedom of expression of a corporation in any way limit your civil rights?
It's not a big logical step from there to "Corporations have the right to bear arms". That's a scary idea.
How, exactly, does a "corporation" bear arms? Do you mean the people working at a corporation? Yes, they still have their individual rights. They do not lose their inalienable rights when they are hired.
Do you mean "bear arms as part of the corporate operation"? Briggs and Wells Fargo and other armored car services come to mind as corporations that "bear arms" in that sense. Do those corporations scare you? I don't believe that the individuals in that corporation bear arms in violation to laws applicable to individuals, but I can't testify to that. I'm rarely scared by a passing fellow with a gun and a moneybag. YMMV.
Or do you mean the corporation can "bear arms" in some other way? The Remington corporation comes to mind as a corporation that "bears arms" in a generic way -- boxes and boxes and boxes of guns sitting in warehouses. So too, Walmart, K-Mart, Bi-Mart, Gander Mountain, and any other retail corporation that stocks them.
Slippery slope arguments are often silly and convoluted, but in this case it's really *not* a huge jump from "Corporations have *this* Constitutional Right" to "Corporations have all Constitutional rights". One really does imply the other.
I am most disturbed not by the idea that corporations have the rights, but the idea that it is a "slippery slope" to think that having one right means one has them all. Yes, having one right means one has them all. That's part of them being "inalienable".
It is a rare human being who has "a single opinion", or even unchangeable opinions. If we make a "unified, consistent set of opinions" a litmus test for having rights, we've removed any concept of "inalienable" or even "rights".
And, if we make "unified opinion" a litmus test for "corporate" rights, we eliminate trade unions from the playing field of political speech, since the members of such unions rarely, if ever, have a single opinion about any political action.
Far from it. That is why I did not say one word about voluntary collaborations of people formed for specifically political purposes.
Unions are, for the most part, involuntary groupings formed based on employment or occupation, having no political purpose behind them. No, "collective bargaining" is not a political purpose, it is a commercial one.
Then the same rules should apply to an individual who has access to union dues. Those are just as much "corporate assets" as "company money", and in many cases less so. If I own a company then those corporate assets are, indeed, mine.
Each corporation has a stated purpose for existing ...
Just as each union has.
That's your opinion, but not the law. I suggest you contact Ben and Jerry's and tell them that their donations to civic causes are not allowed because they do not fall within the scope of "ice cream business". Or Progressive Insurance, which has that name not because they sell progressive insurance.
Again, your opinion. In my opinion, the government has no right, and indeed no Constitutional authority, to tell me that I cannot spend the corporate assets of a company I own in any way I see fit. And for the potential pedant, I'll add "that is legal for any other citizen to spend his money."
Corporations, as an entity made up of people, have just as many rights to speech as any other "entity made up of people". Trade unions, for example.
If the National Education Association can dump tons of money into campaigns, and the SEIU (Oregon state employee union), and the UAW, then so should GM and other corporations be able to do so.
We currently have an incumbent who is painting his opponent as "bought and paid for" because his campaign got a few thousand from a company while the rest of his money came in $100 and similar donations from a large number of people. The incumbent, however, is backed by many of the large unions and has gotten the vast majority of his money from them. Bought and paid for, he says?
Now, you may claim that the unions are speaking with the voice of the members, but that is far from true. They speak with the voice of the leadership. The members are lucky if they can get their politically-based dues back without repercussions.
That's right, but that's not the part of your statement I replied to. I quoted it for you so you'd know. The part I replied to was that you "should be able to ... use the security labeling available in the native OS."
In response to that "should", I replied that it is a MUST. The OS MUST be where the security takes place, for the trivial reasons I provided. Why are you arguing with me?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a call coming in from Vivian Schiller, and then I need to get ready for my daily news report for NPR.
No, this REQUIRES the native OS to cooperate to be successful.
According to the summary, the security policy is enforced by the COMPILER. That means if you change the access policy to a data file, you need to RECOMPILE all the code that touches that data, since the access is compiled in. At least, if the summary is correct, you do.
Further, this is like saying "I'm going to build the most secure Perl compiler ever seen by man. It won't let nobody look at nothing they ain't authorized to look at", and then forget that all your data can be copied to a thumbdrive using 'cp' and displayed using 'od' (or maybe even vi!).
Well, if your first lie gets exposed, change what you meant to say and maybe nobody will point out that it is a lie, too.
Nobody said "no regulations."
I'm not validating the argument, just pointing out that they are, indeed, advocating for a lack of regulations.
Fewer regulations is not the same as none.
Notice that the Bush tax cuts were in effect for a while before the housing bubble burst, and yet there was minimal (if any) job growth.
And notice that the Daddy Government threw billions of dollars into the economy and we're still not producing jobs, even though the promise was that we'd not get above 8%. Guess what people are looking forward to? The tax cuts going away. If you think business people are not planning more than six months in advance, you are a moron.
The biggest growth in history of the US took place when the top tax rates were cut. Moving them back up when we desperately need growth again is just lunacy. Inciting class warfare is one way of keeping people in control -- divide and conquer.
Other than by having money the "poor" are better consumers and buy more things. It's not a zero sum game.
You are right though...reduce a company's tax burden and their revenues go up. Not their headcount...
Yes, when a company has extra money, they do tend to buy more equipment and people to run it, and are able to pay higher salaries.
Which in turn go to dividends that make the rich investors richer.
And by "rich investors", you mean everyone who has a investment retirement account. Do you think I'm rich? I'm not. I do have a considerable amount of money in the stock market because I've been working here for a long time and it has accumulated. I'm a "rich investor", according to you.
Oh, and there are plenty of Average Americans that are teabaggers. Reading comprehension FTW - I said they won't benefit from the tax cutting proposals of the Tea Party...
There are LOTS of normal people in the Tea Party who will benefit from lower taxes. Especially the continuation of the Bush cuts. You don't have to make $250k+ a year. Your insults are unwarranted.
You know what *I* would support? Flat Tax. Every man, woman, and child pays x% of their income to taxes. Make it so the first $50,000 or so earned is non-taxable entirely, and then you pay.
First you say "flat", and then you start making exemptions. How about mortgage deductions for poor people? Stop those? Medical deductions? Stop those too?
Google paying 2% income tax vs my 30% IS NOT FAIR.
Google is a CORPORATION, you are a person. Google is made up of people, all of whom pay taxes on their income.
But the teabaggers want lower taxes...not fair taxes,
Your continued insults are not supporting your arguments. The Tea Party members want lower taxes and fair taxes ... it's just that YOU don't agree with what they think is fair. That doesn't mean they are asking for unfair taxes. I'd be wasting my time if I argued that YOU were demanding unfair taxes, so why do you continue this tack?
Because noting pisses off a conservative with balls in his mouth more than having to give up a goddamned dollar to anyone but themself.
Yep, I guess it't not worth the effort of talking to you because you can't stop being deliberately insulting. Also, you are lying again.
And "not a dime" on those under. And yet, when the Bush tax cuts go away, tax rates will go up. For everyone. http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/ It is a deliberate choice at INACTION, which means it is a choice on the part of Obama to let everyone's taxes go up. He lied. There is no other way to say it.
He also admitted that he knew that increasing the rates on the "rich" would mean lower revenues. He said he'd do it because it was "fair". He doesn't care if there is a budget shortfall, or that by cutting the taxes on those who pay the most you actually get more money out of them overall, he's willing to cut off OUR noses to spite OUR faces.
Which are not income taxes, which they pay 0.
Anyone who supports extending the Bush tax cuts but fails to support extending the Making Work Pay tax cut is doing exactly what we are accusing you of doing, namely, wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes.
That's a lie. You can't "keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes" because they are not the only ones who pay taxes, and they aren't the ones who pay federal income taxes at all.
You refuse to understand the difference between a tax cut and patent welfare. A tax cut means you give less of what you have worked to earn to other people; welfare means other people are giving the money they earned to you. The "Bush tax cuts" are tax cuts. "Maying Work Pay" is welfare. The former deals with money you've earned, the latter with money you are being handed for doing nothing.
Really? Those "poor and stupid people", as you put it, don't get tax credits (handouts) from the tax revenues paid by the richer ones? They don't have jobs in companies owned by the richer ones?
Every time the tax rates are lowered, the revenues go up. Even John Kennedy figured this out when he did it.
Tax cuts are good for the economy as a whole, and for the US government in particular, since it means that the people who earn the money get to keep more of it and the government actually gets more, too.
There are lots of normal Americans in the Tea Party movement, and your insults do nothing to further your arguments.
The actual numbers contradict you. The upper income brackets pay much more proportionally than the lower ones. The lowest brackets pay ZERO -- and then get welfare payments called "EIC" or other credits so they actually get money.
The thing is, these teabaggers are also advocating essentially no regulations on business,
That's a lie.
Basically, they're a bunch of fucks paying the lowest tax rates in decades pissed off that taxes are too high
That the rates might be the "lowest in decades" doesn't mean they aren't still too high. And most of the "fucks" pay nothing at all already and still complain about taxes. The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.
Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with. If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.
It is impossible to enact a tax cut for people who already pay no taxes, and that's nearly 50% of the people in the US already.
Your statement is a tautology. A 5% across the board tax cut will save 50% of the people -- the poor -- nothing at all, while it will save those who pay a lot of taxes a lot. And those in the middle save in the middle.
The reason a national heritage person gave me for the ban in one of the old houses we visited, right after I had taken a picture, was that they were trying to prevent criminals from making up photo catalogs of the knick-knacks. They said that there had been blokes making up figurative "wish lists" of piccys, so less-than-scrupulous collectors could say "I'd like one of those and two of those" and hire someone to break in to steal it.
Me, too. Once you preview, you have to click another buttong to fix any typos, and then preview again before posting.
What's worse is that moderation selections take effect immediately. I used to be able to moderate as I read through the comments, and if I really needed to moderate something near the bottom I could go back up and remove the moderation from an earlier comment and then submit them all at the same time. Now I hesitate to moderate anything because I know the choice is unrevokable once selected. Bad design.
Doctor who?
Actually, the problem is that there is NO evidence for either side. Something one person said to another in a room where there were only those two people and no recordings made is the definition of a "he said/she said". Certainly when the allegation was about something that happened years ago, you cannot know.
I think what is more telling is the reaction of Ms. Hill to the phone message, as an indication of how she interprets statements made to her. A simple "I'd like you to think about apologizing" became an earth-shattering crisis, reported to the FBI for some reason. I cannot think of any law that was broken by Thomas's wife leaving such a message. One phone call in how many years is certainly not harassment by any definition of the term.
What I see is a person who made a really outrageous interpretation of a simple statement today, which would support the idea that maybe she made the same kind of misinterpretation years ago. Maybe. We'll never know.
What we do know is that the matter has become a fire again due to Ms. Hill. I mean, who would doubt that Mrs. Thomas would believe Ms. Hill was not telling the truth? The fact that she made a statement to that effect is, well, hardly newsworthy. I think Ms. Hill is smart enough to know that Thomas's wife thinks she lied, so hearing this opinion would have been no surprise. Had Ms. Hill simply erased the message (as I am forced to erase messages from politicians and "pollsters" thanks to the politicians writing themselves an exemption from the DNC list) nobody would have known it existed. Or cared.