So you want to keep having the privilege of maintaining the ability to come and go to the US, and do not wish to pay for that privilege?
As you need to earn 6 figures to worry about paying US taxes on your overseas income, this compaint is rather esoteric. ANd, if you wish to avoid US taxes on your overseas earnings, you can do as the one rich kid did to avoid taxes and renounce your US citizenship.
IF he had gone to any of the various Representatives or Senators, he would have been a whistle blower.
However, he handed information from the NSA to a foreign reporter...and then ran to Russia. Sorry....loks like someone knew they violated the law even though there was a way to be a whistleblower without violating the law.
Where does the Constitution say you have the right to not experience repercussions from your speech? The boycott of a business who makes statements or acts you disagree with is ALSO "free speech". So...if you went out of your way to support a company that supports bigotted actions, then you are tacitly stating you agree with their position. If you went no more or less than you did prior, then you are simply saying you a neutral on the issue. If you avoid the company, then you are saying you disagree with their position. In all cases, you are "speaking" via your wallet.
Actually, fiscally punishing people for stating their opinion is not stupid. It is how someone can exercise THEIR free speech by demonstrating with their wallet how much they disagree with them. If you wish to financially support those who you disagree with,go for it. However, your opinion on not supporitng them fiscally is...as you say...stupid.
Free speech does not mean free from repercussions.
Actually, you over-simplified. You presume someone cannot be empathetic AND be able to do a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision. In the military, you do both frequently...PFC Johnny has had his mother go into hospital for cancer. She may not make it. SGT Dave works to ensure PFC Johnny gets home to see Mom before she passes. 12 months later, SGT Dave has no issue sending PFC Johnny through the door first as part of the sweep team as he is the best person for the job. If PFC Johnny gets killed as part of the sweep, SGT Dave will be sad as he has lost a team member and (if he is a good NCO) a protege, but he will move on and scream to his leadership for a replacement for the now dead PFC Johnny while also shedding a tear at the memorial service for PFC Johnny.
The two conditions are mutually exclusive in most people.
Not true....those religions have not pushed for their beleifs to be taught in SCIENCE classes, but a small, but highly vocal subset of Christians have done just that. And found (via the courts) that our Constitution does not allow that to occur in PUBLIC schools. You can still teach religion in schools as long as it is done in a neutral manner. This is usually done in conjuction with subjects where this is applicable (ie World Religions, Literature, History, Sociology, Anthropology, etc), just not in biology.
So...for those who wish to treach religious beliefs as science, they can send their children to a church school or home school them. Of course, the courts have also said that colleges aren't required to accept religous beliefs as substutues for actual science when they consider applicants.
This post shows your ignorance about Islam. Islam recognizes many prophets, but consider Mohamed to be the last one. They even consider Jesus (Isa) to be a prophet, and more powerful one than Mohammed in many ways as he performed miracles, but in the end, simply another mortal prophet. They recognize all the Jewish prophets as well.
Not saying I agree with any of the Abrahamic faiths, just correcting your factually incorrect assertion that Muslims only recognize one prophet.
"Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause."
Actually, the truth is people died at an earlier age and had many more children than we have today. In some societies, the old simply wandered off to die to avoid being a drain on their families. If you had no/not enough children, and were not in reach of a charity, you did die...though probably not on the street. Just alone/with your spouse, usually of disease or starvation or both. We also used ot have debtors' prisons, but did away with them as well if you are interested in going back to the olden days.
Social Security was/is a forced pension scheme to ensure that old people have some income post retirement. This means that some can seek careers that are not financially rewarding but does benefit society.
But it also says "former students"....so the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.
You give two examples of websites or groups that have ZERO power in the US. We also have Al Qaida supporters in the US, but they are not in any position to influence the country.
While the US has issues, they are NOT as you would imply.
She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.
The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.
Your supply side argument fails when EVERY Swiss household is likely to have a full mil-spec firearm inside it...unlike the US. This means the per household chance of coming in contact with a firearm is HIGHER than in the US. While the US may have 90 firearms per 100 people, many (if not most) of firearms owners have more than 1 gun. I, for example, own 3. I have friends whose collections number in the 100s. The likelihood of there being another house on my block with a firearm is statistically low....lower than the likelihood of them having a dog over 40lbs.
The Culture of the Swiss is not one where firearms are seen as for personal use...hence a lower issue with them. Also, the Swiss' penchant for being the "neutral" nation has caused outsiders who may agitate in some nations to leave the Swiss alone...so they can use Switzerland as the go between (or safe haven for their funds). If they caused issues in Switzerland, then that government may actually take a position on their activities and so become persona non grata.
It is a cultural issue, not a supply and demand issue. If there were a cultural want of firearms, there are plenty of people to supply them. See many parts of Africa, Northern Ireland, etc for examples of where these is a demand, there will be a supply.
While in the military, I discovered while deployed in various places around the world, weapons are cheap and plentiful if you want them. Hell, in some countries, their military will take you to their armory and let you pick out what you want for the right price! And the right price is a LOT lower than you would think!
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita. If they are in the home (which they are in Switzerland), then they are available. If they wished to go on a shooting spree, what would prevent it? Simply because the source of the weapon is the government (who tracks who has what serial number) does not prevent the use of the firearm in illegal ways.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
Of course, more people are killed in the US by drunk drivers every year than by firearms, yet we still allow cars and alcohol. Knives are really good for killing, and you need little training to use them as well, and they are easy to purchase. A good chef's boning knife is real nice for killing. Willing to put some effort into it, a baseball bat has been known to be real effective, whether you go old school Louisville Slugger or more modern aluminum. And so on.
I've had my firearms (pistols and rifle..one revolver, two semi-auto) for years...two of them for over 20 years...and not killed anyone with them yet. But, with 22 years of military training, I am perfectly comfortable in their use for defense purposes, and would have no issue killing someone to defend my family. Hopefully, that will never be an issue....because, after all, criminals never try to harm people....
When you are 40 or 50 feet up on a maintenance stand, a method to raise the box 4' would not help. Same with working on the top of the T-tail of a large cargo plane...sometimes stuff happens!
As a heterosexual who happens to be a Hispanic but not a Christian, people like this concern me. And any politician that cozies up to Falwell and his Liberty U....definitely deserves careful watching.
I see the reason. Humans expect the jury to comprise of other humans. As a member of the bar (several you say)...you are obviously not a member of the human race.
I would guess the argument is not they are being deprived of a right, but that they relinquished the right when they committed the act that resulted in their conviction of a felony. And, many of those who restirct that right have a mechanism to regain it if the felon meets certain requirements.
As an old AF retiree who spent half my career as a MX type (325X1>2A4x1/2A1X2 to be specific)...I can attest to the abuse the tools the GI uses goes through, and that is frequently just to get the mission done. I recall the Snap-on rep coming by to show off a new shiny "indestructable" very large socket driver. We gave it to the crew chiefs who took it out and cam eback 2 hours later saying buy 5 of them as they dropped the bent monster onto the tool crib bench. The Snap-on guy wanted to know why they wanted to buy it if they managed to bend it. The crew dogs stated they managed to change the brakes on 5 C-130s with it before it started to bend, so it survived longer than any other they had on hand before bending!
And watching your tool box get knocked off a raised B1 stand or off the horizontal stab of a heavy to see it bounce and then create a wonderful FOD pattern on the ground...only priceless if it was not your shop! Otherwise it was a pain in the neck to find every piece!
I call BS on this....people in Europe CAN have health care US style. Private doctors are NOT illegal. And private medical insurance can be bought there. However, they have a safety net that focuses on Preventative care (the GREATEST cost control in health care..prevent the big problems by catching things early means lower overall costs). Tell your relatives they have to give up ALL their current medical care options and see how they scream. Also, their retirement will go up to late 60s, vacation time decreased to a couple of weeks a year (if they are lucky), etc and see how complain then!
I speak as someone who has used European health care (British NHS...and under Thatcher's reign as PM) for over a decade, US military and the VA health care systems and out with doctors in private practice. Some of the worst have been in the general US style health care...
"There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance." Shows your ignorance. The former is the claim that the religious symbol represents ALL veterans of a war. Problem is simply that it does not. Add in the fact it is on GOVERNMENT property and therefore violates the Constitution. The latter on its face contradicts the pledge...how can it be "one nation, under God, indivisible" when that word DOES divide the nation? And it was added in 1954...as a religious gesture.
I am not offended by the notion of a deity. In fact, I have spent many hours ensuring people have the opportunity to practice their faith without hindrance during my 22+ years in the military. I am offended at the presumption that I have to kowtow to someone else's version of deity simply because they are offended when they don't get to force everyone to kowtow to their beliefs.
Also...based on your post..it is NOT religion in general you argue for, but a specific form of religion.
Slashdot Mirror
So you want to keep having the privilege of maintaining the ability to come and go to the US, and do not wish to pay for that privilege?
As you need to earn 6 figures to worry about paying US taxes on your overseas income, this compaint is rather esoteric. ANd, if you wish to avoid US taxes on your overseas earnings, you can do as the one rich kid did to avoid taxes and renounce your US citizenship.
IF he had gone to any of the various Representatives or Senators, he would have been a whistle blower.
However, he handed information from the NSA to a foreign reporter...and then ran to Russia. Sorry....loks like someone knew they violated the law even though there was a way to be a whistleblower without violating the law.
Where does the Constitution say you have the right to not experience repercussions from your speech? The boycott of a business who makes statements or acts you disagree with is ALSO "free speech". So...if you went out of your way to support a company that supports bigotted actions, then you are tacitly stating you agree with their position. If you went no more or less than you did prior, then you are simply saying you a neutral on the issue. If you avoid the company, then you are saying you disagree with their position. In all cases, you are "speaking" via your wallet.
Actually, fiscally punishing people for stating their opinion is not stupid. It is how someone can exercise THEIR free speech by demonstrating with their wallet how much they disagree with them. If you wish to financially support those who you disagree with,go for it. However, your opinion on not supporitng them fiscally is...as you say...stupid.
Free speech does not mean free from repercussions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220189/-Employers-Pay-Workers-with-Costly-Debit-Cards
One case where an employee sued over this type of payment. She wanted an actual check or cash due to the fees associated with the card.
I would say that if you invented the thing that you hold the patent on, then the answer is no.
However, if you were simply someone who bought a patent from someone else and sued based on that, then the answer would be yes.
Actually, you over-simplified. You presume someone cannot be empathetic AND be able to do a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision. In the military, you do both frequently...PFC Johnny has had his mother go into hospital for cancer. She may not make it. SGT Dave works to ensure PFC Johnny gets home to see Mom before she passes. 12 months later, SGT Dave has no issue sending PFC Johnny through the door first as part of the sweep team as he is the best person for the job. If PFC Johnny gets killed as part of the sweep, SGT Dave will be sad as he has lost a team member and (if he is a good NCO) a protege, but he will move on and scream to his leadership for a replacement for the now dead PFC Johnny while also shedding a tear at the memorial service for PFC Johnny.
The two conditions are mutually exclusive in most people.
Not true....those religions have not pushed for their beleifs to be taught in SCIENCE classes, but a small, but highly vocal subset of Christians have done just that. And found (via the courts) that our Constitution does not allow that to occur in PUBLIC schools. You can still teach religion in schools as long as it is done in a neutral manner. This is usually done in conjuction with subjects where this is applicable (ie World Religions, Literature, History, Sociology, Anthropology, etc), just not in biology.
So...for those who wish to treach religious beliefs as science, they can send their children to a church school or home school them. Of course, the courts have also said that colleges aren't required to accept religous beliefs as substutues for actual science when they consider applicants.
This post shows your ignorance about Islam. Islam recognizes many prophets, but consider Mohamed to be the last one. They even consider Jesus (Isa) to be a prophet, and more powerful one than Mohammed in many ways as he performed miracles, but in the end, simply another mortal prophet. They recognize all the Jewish prophets as well.
Not saying I agree with any of the Abrahamic faiths, just correcting your factually incorrect assertion that Muslims only recognize one prophet.
"Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause."
Actually, the truth is people died at an earlier age and had many more children than we have today. In some societies, the old simply wandered off to die to avoid being a drain on their families. If you had no/not enough children, and were not in reach of a charity, you did die...though probably not on the street. Just alone/with your spouse, usually of disease or starvation or both. We also used ot have debtors' prisons, but did away with them as well if you are interested in going back to the olden days.
Social Security was/is a forced pension scheme to ensure that old people have some income post retirement. This means that some can seek careers that are not financially rewarding but does benefit society.
Why doesn't an ADULT former student not have the right to communicate with a former teacher away from the prying eyes of ANYONE?
And...what if the parents are abusing the child? Do they still have the right to see everything the child does?
But it also says "former students"....so the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.
You give two examples of websites or groups that have ZERO power in the US. We also have Al Qaida supporters in the US, but they are not in any position to influence the country.
While the US has issues, they are NOT as you would imply.
She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.
The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.
Your supply side argument fails when EVERY Swiss household is likely to have a full mil-spec firearm inside it...unlike the US. This means the per household chance of coming in contact with a firearm is HIGHER than in the US. While the US may have 90 firearms per 100 people, many (if not most) of firearms owners have more than 1 gun. I, for example, own 3. I have friends whose collections number in the 100s. The likelihood of there being another house on my block with a firearm is statistically low....lower than the likelihood of them having a dog over 40lbs.
The Culture of the Swiss is not one where firearms are seen as for personal use...hence a lower issue with them. Also, the Swiss' penchant for being the "neutral" nation has caused outsiders who may agitate in some nations to leave the Swiss alone...so they can use Switzerland as the go between (or safe haven for their funds). If they caused issues in Switzerland, then that government may actually take a position on their activities and so become persona non grata.
It is a cultural issue, not a supply and demand issue. If there were a cultural want of firearms, there are plenty of people to supply them. See many parts of Africa, Northern Ireland, etc for examples of where these is a demand, there will be a supply.
While in the military, I discovered while deployed in various places around the world, weapons are cheap and plentiful if you want them. Hell, in some countries, their military will take you to their armory and let you pick out what you want for the right price! And the right price is a LOT lower than you would think!
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita. If they are in the home (which they are in Switzerland), then they are available. If they wished to go on a shooting spree, what would prevent it? Simply because the source of the weapon is the government (who tracks who has what serial number) does not prevent the use of the firearm in illegal ways.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
Of course, more people are killed in the US by drunk drivers every year than by firearms, yet we still allow cars and alcohol. Knives are really good for killing, and you need little training to use them as well, and they are easy to purchase. A good chef's boning knife is real nice for killing. Willing to put some effort into it, a baseball bat has been known to be real effective, whether you go old school Louisville Slugger or more modern aluminum. And so on.
I've had my firearms (pistols and rifle..one revolver, two semi-auto) for years...two of them for over 20 years...and not killed anyone with them yet. But, with 22 years of military training, I am perfectly comfortable in their use for defense purposes, and would have no issue killing someone to defend my family. Hopefully, that will never be an issue....because, after all, criminals never try to harm people....
When you are 40 or 50 feet up on a maintenance stand, a method to raise the box 4' would not help. Same with working on the top of the T-tail of a large cargo plane...sometimes stuff happens!
Actually, look at the various states where those same people were up in arms when SCOTUS ruled against those displays.
As for Cuccinelli...you can judge a person for the company he keeps and the comments he makes:
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/for_ken_cuccinelli_discrimination_is_funny
As a heterosexual who happens to be a Hispanic but not a Christian, people like this concern me. And any politician that cozies up to Falwell and his Liberty U....definitely deserves careful watching.
Add in the stuff found here http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/10/91-ken-cuccinelli.html (which gives links to his lunacy)...and we should be scared when he charges into court because HE thinks something is unconstitutional!
I see the reason. Humans expect the jury to comprise of other humans. As a member of the bar (several you say)...you are obviously not a member of the human race.
I would guess the argument is not they are being deprived of a right, but that they relinquished the right when they committed the act that resulted in their conviction of a felony. And, many of those who restirct that right have a mechanism to regain it if the felon meets certain requirements.
As an old AF retiree who spent half my career as a MX type (325X1>2A4x1/2A1X2 to be specific)...I can attest to the abuse the tools the GI uses goes through, and that is frequently just to get the mission done. I recall the Snap-on rep coming by to show off a new shiny "indestructable" very large socket driver. We gave it to the crew chiefs who took it out and cam eback 2 hours later saying buy 5 of them as they dropped the bent monster onto the tool crib bench. The Snap-on guy wanted to know why they wanted to buy it if they managed to bend it. The crew dogs stated they managed to change the brakes on 5 C-130s with it before it started to bend, so it survived longer than any other they had on hand before bending!
And watching your tool box get knocked off a raised B1 stand or off the horizontal stab of a heavy to see it bounce and then create a wonderful FOD pattern on the ground...only priceless if it was not your shop! Otherwise it was a pain in the neck to find every piece!
I call BS on this....people in Europe CAN have health care US style. Private doctors are NOT illegal. And private medical insurance can be bought there. However, they have a safety net that focuses on Preventative care (the GREATEST cost control in health care..prevent the big problems by catching things early means lower overall costs). Tell your relatives they have to give up ALL their current medical care options and see how they scream. Also, their retirement will go up to late 60s, vacation time decreased to a couple of weeks a year (if they are lucky), etc and see how complain then!
I speak as someone who has used European health care (British NHS...and under Thatcher's reign as PM) for over a decade, US military and the VA health care systems and out with doctors in private practice. Some of the worst have been in the general US style health care...
"There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance."
Shows your ignorance. The former is the claim that the religious symbol represents ALL veterans of a war. Problem is simply that it does not. Add in the fact it is on GOVERNMENT property and therefore violates the Constitution. The latter on its face contradicts the pledge...how can it be "one nation, under God, indivisible" when that word DOES divide the nation? And it was added in 1954...as a religious gesture.
I am not offended by the notion of a deity. In fact, I have spent many hours ensuring people have the opportunity to practice their faith without hindrance during my 22+ years in the military. I am offended at the presumption that I have to kowtow to someone else's version of deity simply because they are offended when they don't get to force everyone to kowtow to their beliefs.
Also...based on your post..it is NOT religion in general you argue for, but a specific form of religion.
Like that guy, Joe Smith or how about the SF "writer" L. Ron Hubbard?