You bollocks. FDR came from a rich family yet cared a lot for the poor, and probably did more for them than any other president - but he still wouldn't have the same experience as someone who actually grew up poor, any more than a healthy person would have the same perspective on Polio he did.
Except you're obviously spreading the BS wingnut spin by stripping out the context of what she said - same as Al Gore and the "Inventing the Internet" fable. Out of 50 some racial cases, she's sided with the plaintiff about 3 times - some racist.
DailyKos pointing out that this is another Republican argument of convenience (I apologize for the redundancy of that statement):
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Alito during his confirmation hearings. Identity politics is wonderful - if the nominee is an arch-conservative.
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the America that used to be.
But when you look at the reasons for these objections, you generally find one of two things: an elitist backlash to the New Deal, and a racist backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
How is there not a free market with operating systems?
Re:We already tried the libertarian style economic
on
The Great Ethanol Scam
·
· Score: 1
When was this?
Gilded Age. Google it. I'm also curious to see how you would think a total laziezze faire market would have improved the S&L crisis or the credit swap market implosion.
Crack open history books and read about my red herring
The only thing a lack of government does is make corporations less accountable. No inspections, no regulations, no prosecutions, no anti-trust enforcement...
True but they don't get business from me or others either.
And when you can't trust any food you buy in a store?
There are still some of us who know how to hunt and fish if we want meat.
Good luck finding out if the fish are from uncontaminated water and finding game with disappearing habitat.
Government (who's sole motive isn't greed for money, but rather fear of being elected out of office)
BS!
You BS. The top official in the U.S. government gets paid $400,000 a year. Contrast that to the top five security companies paying losing $26 billion dollars last year - while paying out $23 billion in bonuses. You can have incompetent bureaucrats as well as incompetent executives, but at least the bureaucrat isn't getting paid millions a year to waste your money.
Name one tyme a free market failed.
Oh, pretty much every time it's been tried in any industrialized area. Low taxes & regulations can have high costs.
True enough but it's consolidation and monied influence that gives businesses the power they enjoy
Fixed that up a bit.
For instance the city of New London, Connecticut used their power of eminent domain to take away people's homes so a business could redevelop the land.
An atrocious decision by SCOTUS and an abuse of eminent domain. It would have been nice if the Constitution had the word "directly" in a couple places, as in "directly for public use" and regulating actions that "directly affect inter-state commerce".
Given the shenanigans that go on in washington DC, I don't know why anyone wants them more involved, in healthcare, banking, wallstreet, automobiles, or anywhere.
Because we aren't all troglodyte conservatives engaged in faith-based economics?
healthcare
Because socialized medicine provides better care for less money.
banking
Because you like your bank taking on 60:1 liability/asset ratios, with your retirement savings making up the '1'?
wallstreet
So you'd like having a crash the size of 1929 or the default swap market every 20 years or so?
automobiles
Seat belts. Airbags. Fuel efficiency. For decades they've whined that forced improvements will make cars too expensive and cost jobs, and for decades they've been wrong. If higher CAFE standards have been shoved down the throats of Republicans and Democrats like John Dingell, Katrina wouldn't have sent Detroit on a one way trip to bankruptcy court, because their business model wouldn't have been based around hawking Tahoes, Expeditions and Rams.
California doesn't have the infrastructure to support their electrical needs now.
Sure they do - it helps that Enron went out of business and forcing artificial blackouts anymore. Electrics could do most of their charging overnight, when power demand drops - or possibly even feed power back in during peak hours in the summer.
It's still risky territory - make it up in volume, and you might just see support costs skyrocket, especially with cheap netbook components.
That and there will be some cannibalization of your higher margin sales. HP could sell tons of Mini's (I just bought one myself), but they could actually see their profits decline if they start taking away from the number of Presarios or TouchSmart's that they sell.
Which is why Apple doesn't bother competing in this market by releasing an iCheapo. It means they have a smaller marketshare, but they have higher margin sales and there balls aren't perpetually an inch away from the bandsaw in the cut throat, low margin PC business.
As I've said before (I think to you) picking political arguments with street cops is pretty poor way to "stand up for your rights".
Except of course that just about all disputes start with cops, not with lawmakers. Miranda, Terry Stops, FLIR cameras, take your pick.
Of course, being polite to a cop requires more maturity than some people can manage. But calling immaturity "standing up for your rights" is laughable.
1. Abuse your authority and harass an individual until they become agitated 2. If they don't remain perfectly calm and "respectful" 3. Accuse them of "immaturity" and bringing it on themselves 4. Arrest them for disorderly conduct when you're the one who put them in a disorderly state 5. ??? 6. Profit.
But, the police don't actually need to witness an illegal act to obtain justification for the detainment of an individual.
No, but they do need probable suspicion, which these cops didn't have.
And the picture of the ATM could be used to facilitate a robbery.
And you could kill someone with that unbloodied baseball bat that you were carrying with you down the street when the cops arrested you.
A police officer coming across a person carrying the bloody bat has no idea if the blood is animal or human, from someone else or from the person carrying it, or even that it is blood at all. Just as the police officer coming to the scene of the ATM picture has no idea if the picture is part of a plot to steal from the ATM.
Aside from mixing tenses (what might have happened vs what might happen), the other problem is that the number of reasons to carry a camera is infinitely larger than the number of reasons to carry around a bloodied baseball bat.
But even then, we're still dealing with probable suspicion not probable cause. So in other words, sure the cops could ask the guy some questions, but they had no justification for an arrest.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It depends not just on what your legal rights are, but how those rights are interpreted. Just look at these two wildly different rulings from our Supreme Court:
Supreme Court ruled that scanning houses with FLIR cameras (Forward Looking Infrared Cameras, sense heat) constituted a search and thus required a warrant before using it to scan someone's house. Cops were driving around neighborhoods (or mounting them to helicopters) and looking for houses that put out a lot of heat - a sign of a lot of grow lamps.
A Florida county sheriff received a tip that a man was growing marijuana on his 5 acres (20,000 m2) of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with the state, but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
...which is of course batshit nonsense. Dumbass justices couldn't see the difference between even a slow moving crop duster flying over the guys property at 225 kph, and a helicopter hovering over his property with a sheriff peering inside.
I'm evolved enough to concede that you are right, it was an excellent educational piece. Thanks
Good think I didn't turn up the dickishnes to 11 then.:)
We should all understand how to utilise our rights under the law and you are right to correct the misconceptions. You are very lucky, I wish we had the same rights in Australia.
What part of Australia? I went there a few years ago...spent a week on the northern coast, a week going down to Sidney, and then a week in New Zealand. Beautiful place, but you got some weird laws and weird politicians as we do - you have crappy censorship laws, and we have crappy health care...
Then save your time and skip Smallville. It's like Star Wars: it has some great moments, but at times it can really, really suck. One bad habit they have is to spend an entire season building up to a single point, only to have a two minute resolution. This season they brought out Doomsday, which arguably was the biggest event in DC comics history. The actual fight & resolution on Smallville took about 30 seconds. No, I'm not kidding.
Slashdot Mirror
You bollocks. FDR came from a rich family yet cared a lot for the poor, and probably did more for them than any other president - but he still wouldn't have the same experience as someone who actually grew up poor, any more than a healthy person would have the same perspective on Polio he did.
I see you're the sort of person that likes to put words in people's mouths and put up lame straw men to knock down.
They boil down to this: what part of "well regulated militia" is difficult to understand?
Fixed that for you.
She moved when she was 15 or 16 - hardly "most" of her teenage years. And that's pretending her childhood didn't exist....
Except you're obviously spreading the BS wingnut spin by stripping out the context of what she said - same as Al Gore and the "Inventing the Internet" fable. Out of 50 some racial cases, she's sided with the plaintiff about 3 times - some racist.
DailyKos pointing out that this is another Republican argument of convenience (I apologize for the redundancy of that statement):
Alito during his confirmation hearings. Identity politics is wonderful - if the nominee is an arch-conservative.
Then either
1) you're lying
2) you've lost all touch with reality
But that's the problem with you wingnuts: you try to have your own set of facts with your own opinion.
Wow, did the Storm Front website go down for a while, so you had to find somewhere else to post?
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the America that used to be.
But when you look at the reasons for these objections, you generally find one of two things: an elitist backlash to the New Deal, and a racist backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
There is no freemarket.
How is there not a free market with operating systems?
When was this?
Gilded Age. Google it. I'm also curious to see how you would think a total laziezze faire market would have improved the S&L crisis or the credit swap market implosion.
Crack open history books and read about my red herring
The only thing a lack of government does is make corporations less accountable. No inspections, no regulations, no prosecutions, no anti-trust enforcement...
True but they don't get business from me or others either.
And when you can't trust any food you buy in a store?
There are still some of us who know how to hunt and fish if we want meat.
Good luck finding out if the fish are from uncontaminated water and finding game with disappearing habitat.
BS!
You BS. The top official in the U.S. government gets paid $400,000 a year. Contrast that to the top five security companies paying losing $26 billion dollars last year - while paying out $23 billion in bonuses. You can have incompetent bureaucrats as well as incompetent executives, but at least the bureaucrat isn't getting paid millions a year to waste your money.
Name one tyme a free market failed.
Oh, pretty much every time it's been tried in any industrialized area. Low taxes & regulations can have high costs.
Please, mod down
Fixed that for you.
Also, remember that when private business fails, the investors lose. When government fails, all its citizens lose.
Maybe you should just find a nice vacation home in a place where you don't have to worry about it then?
Dude, give it up, it's not legal for you to sleep with your sister.
True enough but it's consolidation and monied influence that gives businesses the power they enjoy
Fixed that up a bit.
For instance the city of New London, Connecticut used their power of eminent domain to take away people's homes so a business could redevelop the land.
An atrocious decision by SCOTUS and an abuse of eminent domain. It would have been nice if the Constitution had the word "directly" in a couple places, as in "directly for public use" and regulating actions that "directly affect inter-state commerce".
Given the shenanigans that go on in washington DC, I don't know why anyone wants them more involved, in healthcare, banking, wallstreet, automobiles, or anywhere.
Because we aren't all troglodyte conservatives engaged in faith-based economics?
healthcare
Because socialized medicine provides better care for less money.
banking
Because you like your bank taking on 60:1 liability/asset ratios, with your retirement savings making up the '1'?
wallstreet
So you'd like having a crash the size of 1929 or the default swap market every 20 years or so?
automobiles
Seat belts. Airbags. Fuel efficiency. For decades they've whined that forced improvements will make cars too expensive and cost jobs, and for decades they've been wrong. If higher CAFE standards have been shoved down the throats of Republicans and Democrats like John Dingell, Katrina wouldn't have sent Detroit on a one way trip to bankruptcy court, because their business model wouldn't have been based around hawking Tahoes, Expeditions and Rams.
California doesn't have the infrastructure to support their electrical needs now.
Sure they do - it helps that Enron went out of business and forcing artificial blackouts anymore. Electrics could do most of their charging overnight, when power demand drops - or possibly even feed power back in during peak hours in the summer.
It's still risky territory - make it up in volume, and you might just see support costs skyrocket, especially with cheap netbook components.
That and there will be some cannibalization of your higher margin sales. HP could sell tons of Mini's (I just bought one myself), but they could actually see their profits decline if they start taking away from the number of Presarios or TouchSmart's that they sell.
Which is why Apple doesn't bother competing in this market by releasing an iCheapo. It means they have a smaller marketshare, but they have higher margin sales and there balls aren't perpetually an inch away from the bandsaw in the cut throat, low margin PC business.
Don't miss the Wiki page if you need help translating.
As I've said before (I think to you) picking political arguments with street cops is pretty poor way to "stand up for your rights".
Except of course that just about all disputes start with cops, not with lawmakers. Miranda, Terry Stops, FLIR cameras, take your pick.
Of course, being polite to a cop requires more maturity than some people can manage. But calling immaturity "standing up for your rights" is laughable.
1. Abuse your authority and harass an individual until they become agitated
2. If they don't remain perfectly calm and "respectful"
3. Accuse them of "immaturity" and bringing it on themselves
4. Arrest them for disorderly conduct when you're the one who put them in a disorderly state
5. ???
6. Profit.
But, the police don't actually need to witness an illegal act to obtain justification for the detainment of an individual.
No, but they do need probable suspicion, which these cops didn't have.
And the picture of the ATM could be used to facilitate a robbery.
And you could kill someone with that unbloodied baseball bat that you were carrying with you down the street when the cops arrested you.
A police officer coming across a person carrying the bloody bat has no idea if the blood is animal or human, from someone else or from the person carrying it, or even that it is blood at all. Just as the police officer coming to the scene of the ATM picture has no idea if the picture is part of a plot to steal from the ATM.
Aside from mixing tenses (what might have happened vs what might happen), the other problem is that the number of reasons to carry a camera is infinitely larger than the number of reasons to carry around a bloodied baseball bat.
But even then, we're still dealing with probable suspicion not probable cause. So in other words, sure the cops could ask the guy some questions, but they had no justification for an arrest.
I know Smallville sucks. It only took a single episode to convince me of that.
Sorry, next time I'll try to read your mind more clearly.
Oh, and our 4th Amendment is supposed to give us:
It depends not just on what your legal rights are, but how those rights are interpreted. Just look at these two wildly different rulings from our Supreme Court:
Kyllo vs United States
Supreme Court ruled that scanning houses with FLIR cameras (Forward Looking Infrared Cameras, sense heat) constituted a search and thus required a warrant before using it to scan someone's house. Cops were driving around neighborhoods (or mounting them to helicopters) and looking for houses that put out a lot of heat - a sign of a lot of grow lamps.
contrast that to...
Florida vs Riley
I'm evolved enough to concede that you are right, it was an excellent educational piece. Thanks
Good think I didn't turn up the dickishnes to 11 then. :)
We should all understand how to utilise our rights under the law and you are right to correct the misconceptions. You are very lucky, I wish we had the same rights in Australia.
What part of Australia? I went there a few years ago...spent a week on the northern coast, a week going down to Sidney, and then a week in New Zealand. Beautiful place, but you got some weird laws and weird politicians as we do - you have crappy censorship laws, and we have crappy health care...
Then save your time and skip Smallville. It's like Star Wars: it has some great moments, but at times it can really, really suck. One bad habit they have is to spend an entire season building up to a single point, only to have a two minute resolution. This season they brought out Doomsday, which arguably was the biggest event in DC comics history. The actual fight & resolution on Smallville took about 30 seconds. No, I'm not kidding.