The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
Your argument only works if you, yourself, are omniscient. Scientists know that they're always working with incomplete information. You're reversing the test, expecting that God must either operate under your premises or he must not exist.
The Constitution says that the government isn't supposed to invalidate legal contracts. If they can prove that this collusion is actually prohibited by existing antitrust laws, then that's fine. I don't know what your mafia talk is about.
I can remember managing servers with several non-hot-swap SCSI-2 drives with the wide 50 pin ribbon cables. It was a real challenge to route those things so they remained secure and didn't block airflow-- not to mention ensuring that the chain wasn't longer than spec.
Hell, truckers here can't even SMOKE in their trucks anymore.
Canadians are twisted in that they see this as a good thing. Freedom is slavery. And Wal-Mart employment isn't, since you don't have to work there. Please don't try to diminish the meaning of actual slavery with this kind of hyperbole.
Walmart USA uses techniques banned by the Geneva convention?
Is Wal-Mart a war zone? Please don't post again, you ignoramus.
And no one sees the connection between the obstruction caused by union bosses in conspiracy with local law enforcement and the eventual closing of the Ohio Art factory? Who wants to do business in the US when the police keep a company from doing business because its workers are on strike? We call the workers crossing the line "scabs" when they're blue-collar folks like the rest-- they just aren't in that mob called the union. The modern union isn't pro-worker, it's pro-union.
There's plenty of evidence, but atheists summarily dismiss it all because it obviously doesn't fit into their own belief system. I can only assume that an atheist won't be satisfied until Jesus appears in front of him and reprises his classic water-to-wine trick... although atheists are a cruel lot, so they might demand the self-resurrection one instead.
Sorry, but you're picking some kind of biased sample, there. Like maybe Texans. You're also not the FDR definition of a "liberal" if you support bearing arms. FDR "liberals", AKA progressives, think such a concept is outdated. A conservative, by any definition, would support the entire Constitution and probably all its amendments.
What western banking cartel? Are you saying that most of the banks and credit unions are in a trust agreement in the USA? And that you have never heard of created diamonds?
I mostly agree. I'm not against the DOJ stepping in, but by our law, in order to do anything they should have to prove that these companies have formed a trust. If these companies composed, say, 80% of the job market in the area, that would probably be a trust. I would hope that no one expects government bureaucrats (remember, DOJ is appointed and not elected) to start breaking private contracts that they summarily deem "unfair".
I love the Slashdot bias. Both this and the parent post made snarky comments from both sides of the issue, but the one advocating less government intervention got modded down. I think it's hilarious that the same naiive ideologues who protest SOPA because of the dangerous control it gives the government are just fine with giving the government control over private contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you mention that, because he voted against the Iraq war. And I think that changing your position requires that one be proven wrong, first.
I'm curious as to why you think a libertarian would support a high level of foreign aid. That requires giving government more money and power.
The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered. And this isn't a popularity contest, where the countries you like are the ones that matter. Here's why Indonesia sucks, and here's why Ethiopia sucks, and why Equatorial Guinea sucks, and why Gabon sucks. I haven't even touched on their poor economies, or poor literacy. And BTW,this is why YOU suck.
Your argument only works if you, yourself, are omniscient. Scientists know that they're always working with incomplete information. You're reversing the test, expecting that God must either operate under your premises or he must not exist.
No defeatist here, but if you give me a stupid "solution" then I'll shoot it down. And BTW, give me a proof test for "Jesus was a liberal".
Spell my nick right next time, genius. And stop hiding behind the AC.
Again, that requires a law against these contracts, not just a bunch of busybodies deciding what's "fair". I don't think the law exists.
The Constitution says that the government isn't supposed to invalidate legal contracts. If they can prove that this collusion is actually prohibited by existing antitrust laws, then that's fine. I don't know what your mafia talk is about.
Enforcement of what?
I can remember managing servers with several non-hot-swap SCSI-2 drives with the wide 50 pin ribbon cables. It was a real challenge to route those things so they remained secure and didn't block airflow-- not to mention ensuring that the chain wasn't longer than spec.
Canadians are twisted in that they see this as a good thing. Freedom is slavery. And Wal-Mart employment isn't, since you don't have to work there. Please don't try to diminish the meaning of actual slavery with this kind of hyperbole.
Is Wal-Mart a war zone? Please don't post again, you ignoramus.
And no one sees the connection between the obstruction caused by union bosses in conspiracy with local law enforcement and the eventual closing of the Ohio Art factory? Who wants to do business in the US when the police keep a company from doing business because its workers are on strike? We call the workers crossing the line "scabs" when they're blue-collar folks like the rest-- they just aren't in that mob called the union. The modern union isn't pro-worker, it's pro-union.
... the slashdotters complaining on the internet instead of starting their own business with ethical practices.
It's nice that you gave yourself an excuse for being unsuccessful. Let the class warfare resume!
And you don't see the irony there? There is no reason to hate anyone, anywhere, anytime.
There's plenty of evidence, but atheists summarily dismiss it all because it obviously doesn't fit into their own belief system. I can only assume that an atheist won't be satisfied until Jesus appears in front of him and reprises his classic water-to-wine trick... although atheists are a cruel lot, so they might demand the self-resurrection one instead.
No, but it says that Gentiles don't have to follow all the laws that were created for the Jews.
Sorry, but you're picking some kind of biased sample, there. Like maybe Texans. You're also not the FDR definition of a "liberal" if you support bearing arms. FDR "liberals", AKA progressives, think such a concept is outdated. A conservative, by any definition, would support the entire Constitution and probably all its amendments.
Like... who?
So the answer is to give the government more power? Sounds legit.
What western banking cartel? Are you saying that most of the banks and credit unions are in a trust agreement in the USA? And that you have never heard of created diamonds?
I mostly agree. I'm not against the DOJ stepping in, but by our law, in order to do anything they should have to prove that these companies have formed a trust. If these companies composed, say, 80% of the job market in the area, that would probably be a trust. I would hope that no one expects government bureaucrats (remember, DOJ is appointed and not elected) to start breaking private contracts that they summarily deem "unfair".
How DARE you oppose a fellow Slashdotter's well-reasoned, absolutely iron-clad straw man argument?
I love the Slashdot bias. Both this and the parent post made snarky comments from both sides of the issue, but the one advocating less government intervention got modded down. I think it's hilarious that the same naiive ideologues who protest SOPA because of the dangerous control it gives the government are just fine with giving the government control over private contracts.