Tragedy of the commons. We're all better off if nobody ever pays a ransom demand, since that will mostly stop people from trying to extort ransom. However, I may well be better off paying a ransom if my files or a family member are held hostage. I would go to considerable lengths to get my wife or son back safe from kidnappers. A business looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business or something else might well figure that paying a few thousand is in their best interest.
You seem to misunderstand the motives for ramping up the drug war. What that does is convict more people, ruin their lives, and send them to prison at the taxpayers' expense, and that is very good for the private prison industry that takes government funding to use slave labor.
Repealing the ACA without an adequate substitute is going to kill quite a few people (or, if you prefer, leave them to die). Someone who wants to take away the ability of the non-rich to pay for treatment for pre-existing conditions, for example, is at least OK with people dying.
What you are saying in your first paragraph is that Jews and Christians are in general currently doing one thing, while Muslims in general are currently doing something different, which is completely compatible with what I said. Christians are perfectly capable of disregarding what Jesus said plainly when it interferes with what they want to do, and I have a devout friend who keeps quoting Jesus in Facebook rants on the cold, materialistic, "I've got mine" attitude many Christians seem to have. Based on this, I'm convinced that Muslims can do the same thing about what the Prophet said.
I don't particularly care what people believe, as long as it doesn't harm people. (I do want people to not have irrational beliefs that aren't good for them, but it's really none of my business.) I agree that it's likely more harmful to not know that the Muslims kept the slave trade up after the West abandoned slavery than to be a young-Earth Creationist.
Where we disagree is what should be taught in science class. Science class is, in my opinion, to teach science, and science is basically a whole lot of observations and what we've figured out about them. The Theory of Evolution is a body of work that attempts to explain our various observations that show that evolution happened. There is no corresponding Theory of Creationism, because there's no evidence behind it. There are claims that "God did it and that's why we're not really related to monkeys", but without evidence or falsifiability they're not science and do not belong in science class. The founding document of Pastafarianism was a demand that, if the school board insisted on teaching Creationism in science class, that they teach the Judeo-Christian version, the Pastafarian version, and the version that actually has evidence.
It's trivial to find the Wikipedia article, sufficiently trivial that I didn't think it necessary. It's simple to go from there to the cited sources. Since I wasn't going further than saying there's a pay gap, that's all the backing I need.
As a game reviewer once said, "I don't understand ballet, but when the ballerina falls on her ass I know that's a mistake."
Yes, but in WWII the British Army respected the Germans, so "Jerry" was grudgingly respectful. Since the "Jerry cans" were good, they wouldn't be called "Kraut cans", which would be disrespectful. It's a case of differing meanings getting frozen in slang terms.
It seems extremely likely that he violated one or other of the emoluments clauses. Flagrantly and explicitly and clearly violating the Constitution is grounds for impeachment.
Did Bill Clinton rape tons of women? I've seen suggestive but not decisive evidence that he raped one, but that doesn't stop you from stating that he was a prolific rapist as if it were known fact while giving Cosby the benefit of the doubt.
You also thank Clinton for an act that was passed by a Republican Congress. Methinks you're showing a lot of bias here.
Another thing about the Cosby coverage vs. the Clinton coverage is that it's pretty well known that Bill Clinton is a sleazeball, but Cosby had a reputation as been a good person up until the rape accusations started piling up. "Clean wholesome person rapes multiple women" attracts more eyeballs than "Morally icky person rapes a woman".
The Democrats certainly could take a commanding lead in the House, depending on how things go, but the Senators up for re-election are heavily Democratic. If the Democrats sweep the Senator races, which is unlikely, they wouldn't have any sort of supermajority.
The House can impeach a President by majority vote. After that, the Chief Justice presides over a trial by the Senate, and it takes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the President from office. That isn't going to happen without a lot of Republican Senators voting to convict, and if that happens there's no reason impeachment and conviction can't happen sooner than the mid-terms.
We do have awesome government schools. We also have really, really crappy ones. There are a minimum of fifty different public school systems in the country, and the quality varies wildly, even within school systems.
Where were you from 2008 to 2017? Off-planet or hiding under a rock, or just blissfully oblivious to what assorted people were saying and making images about Obama? I'm not condoning everything the Democrats have said and done, but if you're seeing only Democrats doing things like this you're deaf and blind.
Slow down, take a few deep breaths, and relax and look around. If you're taking drugs,stop. If not, consult a psychiatrist about your paranoia.
White people are not "my own kind", they're people who share a skin color and a few other characteristics with me. Geeks are "my own kind". Nor is anyone saying you have to associate with anyone personally. Racial discrimination has been illegal in most businesses for a long time.
Employers do not, in general, police employees' speech. If an employee says something particularly offensive in the workplace or (in a few cases) in public, the employer is likely to come down on him or her. Employers in general either discourage all political talk in the workplace, or don't care. In particular, they don't force people to pretend to have particular opinions about immigration policies.
As to your final question, why do people believe that pink unicorns have longer horns? Also, if you're going to ask "why" about things that aren't true, why not go for the gusto like I did?
I express my personal views on race, sex, Islam, and feminism and lots of other things. Lots of people disagree with me (actually, most people disagree with me on some things), but nobody's done anything to me but disagree with me and insult me*. If you feel intimidated, that's your problem. Go ahead and express your opinions. It's almost certain that nobody's going to hurt you for it.
The "establishment" includes a considerable variety of ideas. Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton have very different ideas on a lot of things, and both of them did very well in the nomination process. Sanders was neither a billionaire or part of the establishment, and he certainly expressed his opinions.
Trump felt free to be an asshole and a liar, primarily. Regrettably, that is why quite a few people voted for him.
In other words, you'll twist meanings until you find one that suits you. It's reasonable to want Trump impeached for the things he's done since inauguration. It isn't political revenge, it's that Trump has disgusted millions of Americans.
Typical Vox article, where "pro-Trump" = "racist". Continuing to deny even the remotest possibility that Hillary! was just too corrupt for many people to swallow,
You seem to be contradicting yourself. People didn't become pro-Trump because they were anti-Clinton, they just voted for him. Being pro-Trump, not just voting for Trump, is being for racism, sexism, and entitlement.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right on the facts, which I very strongly doubt, what does it matter? There isn't enough violence out there to affect much of anything. Crime rates are a lot lower than they used to be. Most of us left-wing types want to achieve our goals through peaceful means.
Whose goal? There are some idiots out there who try that, but I haven't seen all that many. Fortunately, most people are too smart to fall for that, and I can ignore the idiots that do.
I have a friend who's an Episcopal priest. A mutual friend asked her to officiate at her wedding, and as it turns out the friend's fiance doesn't want to go to premarital counseling, and my friend is bound by canon law not to perform the ceremony in that event. Apparently, then, it is possible to legally refuse to perform a religious ceremony.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't ordain women as priests. I haven't heard of any lawsuit successfully compelling the Church to ordain one. Sexual orientation is part of the protected class legislation in many states, but sex itself is almost always part of the protected class legislation.
I find myself being turned off by the idea of gay sex, but so far none of my gay relatives, friends, or acquaintances have started doing sexual things in my presence. I really don't care what people do in private. My stake in this is that I want people to be able to marry those they love. I'm pro-marriage. My current one has been very successful, most of my married friends and relatives are happy with their marriage, and I want everyone to be able to enjoy it.
How much is marriage taught in schools today? And who TF are you to say what's normal? I want there to be more sex and less violence in the media, but nobody seems to care about what I think.
Oddly enough, there are lots of Trump supporters who don't seem to accept the election results. They're still trying to run against Clinton, months after she's ceased to be politically important. In discussions about Trump, I keep seeing people talking about the email server and the mishandling of classified material and Benghazi (where the Republican refusal to give Clinton the security funds she insisted was necessary caused the death of four people), like any of that's relevant to what Trump's doing.
No, they ask you firmly to get into the truck, except if you're armed, in which case they tell you do put the weapon down and shoot you if you don't comply. By arming yourself, you're only adding extra steps to the process.
I can conceive of no reason why an oppressive government wouldn't want to make some loud noises and scatter a few corpses around now and then, provided the corpses are of people who seriously resisted the government.
Tha answer is that the militia be it a group or individual needs to have strong enough arms to revolt against a malicious government.
No, that isn't going to happen. It's practically impossible for a group of armed civilians to defeat a regular army force without truly overwhelming numbers and an unrealistic disregard for casualties and safety. This isn't 1775.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of people who seem eager to ban any teenage activity that doesn't involve sex or drugs.
Tragedy of the commons. We're all better off if nobody ever pays a ransom demand, since that will mostly stop people from trying to extort ransom. However, I may well be better off paying a ransom if my files or a family member are held hostage. I would go to considerable lengths to get my wife or son back safe from kidnappers. A business looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business or something else might well figure that paying a few thousand is in their best interest.
You seem to misunderstand the motives for ramping up the drug war. What that does is convict more people, ruin their lives, and send them to prison at the taxpayers' expense, and that is very good for the private prison industry that takes government funding to use slave labor.
This is Coinbase trying to avoid the Feds poking into their business.
Repealing the ACA without an adequate substitute is going to kill quite a few people (or, if you prefer, leave them to die). Someone who wants to take away the ability of the non-rich to pay for treatment for pre-existing conditions, for example, is at least OK with people dying.
What you are saying in your first paragraph is that Jews and Christians are in general currently doing one thing, while Muslims in general are currently doing something different, which is completely compatible with what I said. Christians are perfectly capable of disregarding what Jesus said plainly when it interferes with what they want to do, and I have a devout friend who keeps quoting Jesus in Facebook rants on the cold, materialistic, "I've got mine" attitude many Christians seem to have. Based on this, I'm convinced that Muslims can do the same thing about what the Prophet said.
I don't particularly care what people believe, as long as it doesn't harm people. (I do want people to not have irrational beliefs that aren't good for them, but it's really none of my business.) I agree that it's likely more harmful to not know that the Muslims kept the slave trade up after the West abandoned slavery than to be a young-Earth Creationist.
Where we disagree is what should be taught in science class. Science class is, in my opinion, to teach science, and science is basically a whole lot of observations and what we've figured out about them. The Theory of Evolution is a body of work that attempts to explain our various observations that show that evolution happened. There is no corresponding Theory of Creationism, because there's no evidence behind it. There are claims that "God did it and that's why we're not really related to monkeys", but without evidence or falsifiability they're not science and do not belong in science class. The founding document of Pastafarianism was a demand that, if the school board insisted on teaching Creationism in science class, that they teach the Judeo-Christian version, the Pastafarian version, and the version that actually has evidence.
It's trivial to find the Wikipedia article, sufficiently trivial that I didn't think it necessary. It's simple to go from there to the cited sources. Since I wasn't going further than saying there's a pay gap, that's all the backing I need.
As a game reviewer once said, "I don't understand ballet, but when the ballerina falls on her ass I know that's a mistake."
Yes, but in WWII the British Army respected the Germans, so "Jerry" was grudgingly respectful. Since the "Jerry cans" were good, they wouldn't be called "Kraut cans", which would be disrespectful. It's a case of differing meanings getting frozen in slang terms.
Um, why were you replying to me and agreeing with me in a tone that suggests to me you were disagreeing with me?
What is "well regulated"? It seems to me to have more than one possible meaning, and so I'm not sure of it.
It seems extremely likely that he violated one or other of the emoluments clauses. Flagrantly and explicitly and clearly violating the Constitution is grounds for impeachment.
Did Bill Clinton rape tons of women? I've seen suggestive but not decisive evidence that he raped one, but that doesn't stop you from stating that he was a prolific rapist as if it were known fact while giving Cosby the benefit of the doubt.
You also thank Clinton for an act that was passed by a Republican Congress. Methinks you're showing a lot of bias here.
Another thing about the Cosby coverage vs. the Clinton coverage is that it's pretty well known that Bill Clinton is a sleazeball, but Cosby had a reputation as been a good person up until the rape accusations started piling up. "Clean wholesome person rapes multiple women" attracts more eyeballs than "Morally icky person rapes a woman".
The Democrats certainly could take a commanding lead in the House, depending on how things go, but the Senators up for re-election are heavily Democratic. If the Democrats sweep the Senator races, which is unlikely, they wouldn't have any sort of supermajority.
The House can impeach a President by majority vote. After that, the Chief Justice presides over a trial by the Senate, and it takes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the President from office. That isn't going to happen without a lot of Republican Senators voting to convict, and if that happens there's no reason impeachment and conviction can't happen sooner than the mid-terms.
We do have awesome government schools. We also have really, really crappy ones. There are a minimum of fifty different public school systems in the country, and the quality varies wildly, even within school systems.
Where were you from 2008 to 2017? Off-planet or hiding under a rock, or just blissfully oblivious to what assorted people were saying and making images about Obama? I'm not condoning everything the Democrats have said and done, but if you're seeing only Democrats doing things like this you're deaf and blind.
Slow down, take a few deep breaths, and relax and look around. If you're taking drugs ,stop. If not, consult a psychiatrist about your paranoia.
White people are not "my own kind", they're people who share a skin color and a few other characteristics with me. Geeks are "my own kind". Nor is anyone saying you have to associate with anyone personally. Racial discrimination has been illegal in most businesses for a long time.
Employers do not, in general, police employees' speech. If an employee says something particularly offensive in the workplace or (in a few cases) in public, the employer is likely to come down on him or her. Employers in general either discourage all political talk in the workplace, or don't care. In particular, they don't force people to pretend to have particular opinions about immigration policies.
As to your final question, why do people believe that pink unicorns have longer horns? Also, if you're going to ask "why" about things that aren't true, why not go for the gusto like I did?
I express my personal views on race, sex, Islam, and feminism and lots of other things. Lots of people disagree with me (actually, most people disagree with me on some things), but nobody's done anything to me but disagree with me and insult me*. If you feel intimidated, that's your problem. Go ahead and express your opinions. It's almost certain that nobody's going to hurt you for it.
The "establishment" includes a considerable variety of ideas. Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton have very different ideas on a lot of things, and both of them did very well in the nomination process. Sanders was neither a billionaire or part of the establishment, and he certainly expressed his opinions.
Trump felt free to be an asshole and a liar, primarily. Regrettably, that is why quite a few people voted for him.
In other words, you'll twist meanings until you find one that suits you. It's reasonable to want Trump impeached for the things he's done since inauguration. It isn't political revenge, it's that Trump has disgusted millions of Americans.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. People didn't become pro-Trump because they were anti-Clinton, they just voted for him. Being pro-Trump, not just voting for Trump, is being for racism, sexism, and entitlement.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right on the facts, which I very strongly doubt, what does it matter? There isn't enough violence out there to affect much of anything. Crime rates are a lot lower than they used to be. Most of us left-wing types want to achieve our goals through peaceful means.
Whose goal? There are some idiots out there who try that, but I haven't seen all that many. Fortunately, most people are too smart to fall for that, and I can ignore the idiots that do.
I have a friend who's an Episcopal priest. A mutual friend asked her to officiate at her wedding, and as it turns out the friend's fiance doesn't want to go to premarital counseling, and my friend is bound by canon law not to perform the ceremony in that event. Apparently, then, it is possible to legally refuse to perform a religious ceremony.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't ordain women as priests. I haven't heard of any lawsuit successfully compelling the Church to ordain one. Sexual orientation is part of the protected class legislation in many states, but sex itself is almost always part of the protected class legislation.
I find myself being turned off by the idea of gay sex, but so far none of my gay relatives, friends, or acquaintances have started doing sexual things in my presence. I really don't care what people do in private. My stake in this is that I want people to be able to marry those they love. I'm pro-marriage. My current one has been very successful, most of my married friends and relatives are happy with their marriage, and I want everyone to be able to enjoy it.
How much is marriage taught in schools today? And who TF are you to say what's normal? I want there to be more sex and less violence in the media, but nobody seems to care about what I think.
Oddly enough, there are lots of Trump supporters who don't seem to accept the election results. They're still trying to run against Clinton, months after she's ceased to be politically important. In discussions about Trump, I keep seeing people talking about the email server and the mishandling of classified material and Benghazi (where the Republican refusal to give Clinton the security funds she insisted was necessary caused the death of four people), like any of that's relevant to what Trump's doing.
No, they ask you firmly to get into the truck, except if you're armed, in which case they tell you do put the weapon down and shoot you if you don't comply. By arming yourself, you're only adding extra steps to the process.
I can conceive of no reason why an oppressive government wouldn't want to make some loud noises and scatter a few corpses around now and then, provided the corpses are of people who seriously resisted the government.
No, that isn't going to happen. It's practically impossible for a group of armed civilians to defeat a regular army force without truly overwhelming numbers and an unrealistic disregard for casualties and safety. This isn't 1775.