...and wanted his name on the sweeping healthcare reform that would also become historical.
Yep...that healthcare POS is gonna be another black mark on his legacy. I'm hearing some pretty bad things monetarily that likely will be happening to it come about 2017....when he's safely out of office.
UGH, the angled brackets didn't show up...reposting with square brackets for fill in the blank rant...
Big differences in your examples.
If you want to investigate and possibly prosecute someone that makes direct threats against someone, that seem actionable (I"m gonna kill all the white guys this week, who's with me?)...that's one thing.
But to say "I hate all [racial epithet] 's and they are the lowest scum of the earth and I don't think those fucking [religious slant]s should be allowed to invade and change my country's core beliefs", is nothing more than one person's opinion.
It shouldn't be against any law to say you don't like crackers, towel heads, spear chuckers, wops, gooks, chinks, spics or any other racial slur you wish to use.
You may find some people are offended and may not want to hang around or be associated with you, and that's fine...but that is free speech.
If you value free speech, then you value even offensive speech.
At least that is the ideal.
Freedom of speech by necessity cannot allow anyone to be free from being offended.
Crap, all the angle brackets I put in there are missing. What I meant to say is:
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking [racial epithet] 's out there that think [diety] wants you to not eat [certain foods] and thinks all [non-believers] [gender] should blow all [religious right fighers] and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
Just because you don't see the problem, doesn't mean that signs are not already there. Just consider how popular Trump is. His constituency are people who "made bad choices or were too stupid to learn". It doesn't take complete societal collapse for the bad guys to come to power via democratic-ish process. Just look at post WW1 Germany.
I"m certainly not in the "bad choices" crowd.
But what exactly is that bad about Trump?
While I think he'd make a bad Rep Candidate....I do like a lot of what he's said and brought up on the political scoreboard this round.
He's put things on the front line that NEEDED to be there and would not have been otherwise if we just had the usual establishment candidates.
I dont agree with all Trump says, but I'd say the majority of it resonates with me, and I'm nowhere near the bottom of the food chain when it comes to making a living.
Yes there is. Go look at the documentaries from the time of MLK.
Fuck, look at Trump.
And look at the video of Khomeni when he was telling the Iranians to blow the shit out of the Great Satan.
You telling me that's not hate speech?
Big differences in your examples.
If you want to investigate and possibly prosecute someone that makes direct threats against someone, that seem actionable (I"m gonna kill all the white guys this week, who's with me?)...that's one thing.
But to say "I hate all 's and they are the lowest scum of the earth and I don't think those fucking should be allowed to invade and change my country's core beliefs", is nothing more than one person's opinion.
It shouldn't be against any law to say you don't like crackers, towel heads, spear chuckers, wops, gooks, chinks, spics or any other racial slur you wish to use.
You may find some people are offended and may not want to hang around or be associated with you, and that's fine...but that is free speech.
If you value free speech, then you value even offensive speech.
At least that is the ideal.
Freedom of speech by necessity cannot allow anyone to be free from being offended.
now see?
that's exactly the kind of hate speech we're talking about.
thanks for providing the example.
now crawl back under your rock.
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking 's out there that think wants you to not eat and thinks should blow all and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
Think about it...kids could once again spend their formative years learning to meet, interact and deal with REAL PEOPLE in meatspace...and once again develop people skills.
I think much of that has been lost to the recent generations that still sit across the table from one another and FB/Tweet and text rather than actually talking to each other in person.....
Drinking and driving is common and a part of life in New Orleans. No one looks at it as that big a deal, unless you get so tanked you crash.
We have drive through daiquiri shops here...we allow you to take "to-go" drinks out of bars here...and until a few years ago, we didn't have an open container law for cars, if you got pulled over with a drink you could just hand it to your passenger.
So, get over yourself. It isn't that big a deal. The legal limits are now artificially too low....you can easily have a few and not be a danger.
But if you are now planning a LONG night of heavy drinking...then you now have an easier alternative, rather than driving and potentially having to leave your car overnight and coming back to it stolen or stripped.
Eventually, we'll have a Universal Basic Income, and humans can stop doing drudge work better handled by automation, altogether.
And exactly WHOM will be paying for this exactly?
Money for everything doesn't just magically appear from thin air, no matter how bad the Fed tries to prove that theory wrong. At some point, it has to be backed by something.
But everyone needs a job and needs to work. Even if it is drudge work...needs to be done. Sitting on ones ass for life is not the way humans were meant to live.
You are absolutely correct, life is a competition... and nobody enforcing the rules. Our civilization is about 3 missed meals away from collapsing and then rules completely change, and big dumb burly guys willing to murder everyone around would go to the top of the food chain, and smart people interested in intellectual work go to the bottom.
I don't really see that as a problem in the US. Even the poorest person here in the US is leaps and bounds above the poor in any other country.
No one here has to starve unless they really want to...and unless you are so rural that you aren't in touch with anyone else for 100's of miles, you are not in danger of starving...and if you are, then you're not likely a candidate for revolt and radicalization.
Besides, there's not that many starving muslims in the us that are poor, can't get a job and open to radicalization.
If they're contractors, then treat them like contractors. If they're employees, then treat them like employees.
he whole argument is that they're being treated to the negative aspects of being an employee while also being treated to the negative aspects of being a contractor. Pick one or the other.
They look to be perfectly fitting into the contractor model....own equipment, set own hours...can accept or decline to pick someone up, etc.
Seems to be a contractor to me....where's the negative here?
You are out of touch. Think of all the uneducated and under employed people that are getting squeezed out by automation. Changing jobs is a serious hardship for some non-zero subset of these people.
So, we're supposed to change out models, pander to the lowest common denominator...and cater to those that made bad choices or were too stupid to learn how to get a "real" job? I know that makes things harder, but that is the reality of the world, and they're just gonna have to find a way to make it in the new work arena.
Life is a competition....and there really shouldn't be a reason to hold others back for some folks' failures. Being free to succeed and also freedom to fail.
You have you head up your ass that's how you can willfully ignore how Uber breaks the law - hint it's where they claim they are not an employer so they don't have to follow all kinds of laws.
To me, Uber's model looks like a proper 1099 contractor model.
You have your head up your ass if you think everyone out there doesn't like the 1099 model and only wants to be a W2 grunt worker.....
You contract mainly in the private sector, right? Where you're exposed to competition from H1Bs and offshoring like everyone else, right?
I'm sorry...are there a bunch of H1B's trying to push US citizens out of Uber contract gigs that I missed?
I do all kinds of contract work...private, and govt. I love it. Freedom to set my bill rate, find jobs I like, pay my own way AND, keep more of my hard earned money from Uncle Sam's tax grab than I could when I was a W2....
Well if you abolish unions those times form the past will slowly return. Besides Uber is abusing the system.
Well, if the need for unions returns, then we can slowly bring them back as needed.
And I for one don't see Uber abusing any system. It seems to work great, for me as a rider, and for drivers here all of which I've asked and they said they love it as a great way to earn a little side money, get out and meet people, etc.
By that measure, Uber pays drivers (and charges riders) too much already. The fees should be just enough to cover fuel costs. If drivers are doing this as a job, then it's not really getting cars off the road. By driving to places that they would not normally be going anyway, traffic/fuel consumption is not decreased.
Since getting a ride with Uber is now finally at a cost effective level, it has cut down on the time spent drunk driving. I know it has cut down my level of having to drive home from an event or bar where I'll be well over the legal limit.
For all those that bitch at folks drinking and driving....it is a great way to reduce that.
"if you don't make enough money driving for Uber then DON'T drive for them and find a new "job". "
How did this get upvoted? This is rehashing of "if you have nothing to hide" fallacy.
These two ideas have nothing to do with each other. One is a privacy thing and freedom from oppression from you govt.
The job thing, this is the age old paradigm of HAVING a job. No one forces you to work somewhere, a gun is never held to your head. It is a freedom you've always had (general public being the 'you').
Of course everyone has special circumstances and some have lives that are tougher than the other, but the common denominator we've always worked within, is having the freedom to look for and work any job that suits you.
I would also posit, that NOT all jobs are supposed to be "real" jobs that you earn a living at. Some are meant only to be used to earn some money on the side, or to be a starter job for kids looking for that first introductory job.
A job isn't a right so to speak...it is an agreement between you and the employer, if you agree on the parameters of the job vs the pay, then you do it.
If you don't like that or find a better one, you migrate to that better job that fits your needs better.
This was a perfectly valid choice for up voting...at least for a US job.
Also "finanance" doesn't excuse unethically not paying a living wage and etc
But....NOT every job has to be one with a living wage, that's the problem here. Some jobs are meant to be starter jobs (for younger folks that need to have that first job to learn responsibility, how to do taxes, etc.).
Uber isn't really meant to be a career...it is something that folks do to pick up some extra money on the side.
Perhaps we need to have a category of jobs...Real jobs (that you make a living wage with) vs Side Jobs / Starter Jobs.
Most employment law came directly from unions. They are not all evil and in the aggregate far better than your typical corporation in terms of ethics and morality.
They did fill a need in the past.
But since then, they have become corrupted entities that rob wages from people that don't want or need them, and they overburden companies with requirements that make corporations unable to compete with the global economy. In many cases, not all.....but enough to be a problem today.
They also take money from workers to promote political agendas and politicians that the workers may often not agree with or support, which is just dead wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing most guys for most of their lives have been also recommending this to their women...hehehe
Yep...that healthcare POS is gonna be another black mark on his legacy. I'm hearing some pretty bad things monetarily that likely will be happening to it come about 2017....when he's safely out of office.
He is of no substance, just photo ops and something to set up his "legacy" such as it will be.
Honestly, He has given his predecessor a serious race for the bottom...and I fear he is winning at this point.
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
It might not be pretty....but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Yes.
And who makes YOU the judge on what is or is not hate speech and therefore censored?
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking [racial epithet] 's out there that think [diety] wants you to not eat [certain foods] and thinks all [non-believers] [gender] should blow all [religious right fighers] and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
I"m certainly not in the "bad choices" crowd.
But what exactly is that bad about Trump?
While I think he'd make a bad Rep Candidate....I do like a lot of what he's said and brought up on the political scoreboard this round.
He's put things on the front line that NEEDED to be there and would not have been otherwise if we just had the usual establishment candidates.
I dont agree with all Trump says, but I'd say the majority of it resonates with me, and I'm nowhere near the bottom of the food chain when it comes to making a living.
Big differences in your examples.
If you want to investigate and possibly prosecute someone that makes direct threats against someone, that seem actionable (I"m gonna kill all the white guys this week, who's with me?)...that's one thing.
But to say "I hate all 's and they are the lowest scum of the earth and I don't think those fucking should be allowed to invade and change my country's core beliefs", is nothing more than one person's opinion.
It shouldn't be against any law to say you don't like crackers, towel heads, spear chuckers, wops, gooks, chinks, spics or any other racial slur you wish to use.
You may find some people are offended and may not want to hang around or be associated with you, and that's fine...but that is free speech.
If you value free speech, then you value even offensive speech.
At least that is the ideal.
Freedom of speech by necessity cannot allow anyone to be free from being offended.
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking 's out there that think wants you to not eat and thinks should blow all and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
This should be a bad idea to do this..but then again, this isn't the US, it is Germany who can do as they please there....
Think about it...kids could once again spend their formative years learning to meet, interact and deal with REAL PEOPLE in meatspace...and once again develop people skills.
I think much of that has been lost to the recent generations that still sit across the table from one another and FB/Tweet and text rather than actually talking to each other in person.....
We have drive through daiquiri shops here...we allow you to take "to-go" drinks out of bars here...and until a few years ago, we didn't have an open container law for cars, if you got pulled over with a drink you could just hand it to your passenger.
So, get over yourself. It isn't that big a deal. The legal limits are now artificially too low....you can easily have a few and not be a danger.
But if you are now planning a LONG night of heavy drinking...then you now have an easier alternative, rather than driving and potentially having to leave your car overnight and coming back to it stolen or stripped.
And exactly WHOM will be paying for this exactly?
Money for everything doesn't just magically appear from thin air, no matter how bad the Fed tries to prove that theory wrong. At some point, it has to be backed by something.
But everyone needs a job and needs to work. Even if it is drudge work...needs to be done. Sitting on ones ass for life is not the way humans were meant to live.
I don't really see that as a problem in the US. Even the poorest person here in the US is leaps and bounds above the poor in any other country.
No one here has to starve unless they really want to...and unless you are so rural that you aren't in touch with anyone else for 100's of miles, you are not in danger of starving...and if you are, then you're not likely a candidate for revolt and radicalization.
Besides, there's not that many starving muslims in the us that are poor, can't get a job and open to radicalization.
They look to be perfectly fitting into the contractor model....own equipment, set own hours...can accept or decline to pick someone up, etc.
Seems to be a contractor to me....where's the negative here?
So, we're supposed to change out models, pander to the lowest common denominator...and cater to those that made bad choices or were too stupid to learn how to get a "real" job? I know that makes things harder, but that is the reality of the world, and they're just gonna have to find a way to make it in the new work arena.
Life is a competition....and there really shouldn't be a reason to hold others back for some folks' failures. Being free to succeed and also freedom to fail.
Why do you hate having freedom to choose?
To me, Uber's model looks like a proper 1099 contractor model.
You have your head up your ass if you think everyone out there doesn't like the 1099 model and only wants to be a W2 grunt worker.....
I'm sorry...are there a bunch of H1B's trying to push US citizens out of Uber contract gigs that I missed?
I do all kinds of contract work...private, and govt. I love it. Freedom to set my bill rate, find jobs I like, pay my own way AND, keep more of my hard earned money from Uncle Sam's tax grab than I could when I was a W2....
Well, if the need for unions returns, then we can slowly bring them back as needed.
And I for one don't see Uber abusing any system. It seems to work great, for me as a rider, and for drivers here all of which I've asked and they said they love it as a great way to earn a little side money, get out and meet people, etc.
Since getting a ride with Uber is now finally at a cost effective level, it has cut down on the time spent drunk driving. I know it has cut down my level of having to drive home from an event or bar where I'll be well over the legal limit.
For all those that bitch at folks drinking and driving....it is a great way to reduce that.
These two ideas have nothing to do with each other. One is a privacy thing and freedom from oppression from you govt.
The job thing, this is the age old paradigm of HAVING a job. No one forces you to work somewhere, a gun is never held to your head. It is a freedom you've always had (general public being the 'you').
Of course everyone has special circumstances and some have lives that are tougher than the other, but the common denominator we've always worked within, is having the freedom to look for and work any job that suits you.
I would also posit, that NOT all jobs are supposed to be "real" jobs that you earn a living at. Some are meant only to be used to earn some money on the side, or to be a starter job for kids looking for that first introductory job.
A job isn't a right so to speak...it is an agreement between you and the employer, if you agree on the parameters of the job vs the pay, then you do it.
If you don't like that or find a better one, you migrate to that better job that fits your needs better.
This was a perfectly valid choice for up voting...at least for a US job.
But....NOT every job has to be one with a living wage, that's the problem here. Some jobs are meant to be starter jobs (for younger folks that need to have that first job to learn responsibility, how to do taxes, etc.).
Uber isn't really meant to be a career...it is something that folks do to pick up some extra money on the side.
Perhaps we need to have a category of jobs...Real jobs (that you make a living wage with) vs Side Jobs / Starter Jobs.
They did fill a need in the past.
But since then, they have become corrupted entities that rob wages from people that don't want or need them, and they overburden companies with requirements that make corporations unable to compete with the global economy. In many cases, not all.....but enough to be a problem today.
They also take money from workers to promote political agendas and politicians that the workers may often not agree with or support, which is just dead wrong.