I'm not saying this to be flippant, nor to minimize the dedication and hard work and sacrifices of athletes who compete at the highest levels. But seriously, when do we stop giving in to corporate greed and corruption? The IOC is organized thuggery, and there are uncomfortable parallels between the Olympic Games and the Hunger Games. Yes, it's an extreme comparison; but a little thought, especially in the context of your argument, makes it seem somewhat less extreme.
Few, if any of the athletes care, or even know. There are exceptions... Look back on the history of the AAU, and Prefonaine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... And look at the shit storm that is the NCAA, and lawsuits by football and basketball players. But, in the big scheme of things, most just want to compete. I swam competitively, for hours, six days a week, all year long for several years. Money, or even scholarship, was never the goal, it was just about friendly competition, and our team beating the other teams. 40+ years later, I've still got former teammates who feel like brothers to me.
Don't bother debating with them. They think they're a progressive socialist, but are really just a fucking moron.
As someone who's quite the opposite of a progressive socialist, I'll say you're being a moron if you're not considering the possibility that these people will help spread those diseases.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
We are not at war with Russia. They are not a declared enemy. Nobody has ever been charged with treason under lesser circumstances.
The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States.
Have I got this right?
Um, no. It was a private server, and she didn't have any classified data there, so what's the problem?
This is nothing more than the DNC/media distracting everyone from the hot story about how the democratic nomination was stolen from Bernie. The entire primary was a farce, but we'll just fire the chairwoman, and call it all good. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. This is not democracy, this is a coronation by a group of inside elitists, and the rest of you plebes can suck it up. We'll just point to Trump and scream about how everything is his fault.
If, as HRC claimed, there was nothing in the 30,000 emails, other than personal stuff, where's the danger? Or, could it possibly be that wasn't factual??? Oh, say it isn't so.
Oh, and one more thing. How would you react when it's the company you work for that gets the "death penalty"? I work in a company that had over 100,000 employees. Are you willing to put all of them along with their families, and all of the suppliers and their businesses at risk? You'd likely have a significant impact on half a million people if someone at the top screwed up. It's basically the same reason that, as a conservative, I agreed with Obama bailing out the auto industry.
Those bad CEOs are the ones responsible for decisions such as the tax dodges that result in EVERYONE ELSE paying more than their fair share of taxes.
We need a corporate "death penalty" to force shareholders to look at the underlying fundamentals of the business, including ethics.
Completely unreasonable. Do you have a 401k? Do you know all the companies that they invest in? Have you researched all of them? Or, do you have shares of the Dow, S&P, Wilshire, etc., indexes? Are you going to research all the members? No.
All that said, we do need to penalize those responsible for corporate misdeeds. The fines that a couple Wall St. firms got from the housing bubble are barely a slap on the wrist, and some of the leaders needed to do stretches in jail. Until we see such penalties, we can expect repeated screw ups.
He didn't imply that illegal actions aren't our business. Could you possibly stretch the intention of his comment more? Also, you clearly have no concept of the actual meaning of libertarian, and a severe lack of civility calling names for no good reason.
Degrees used to be free of course, or at least quite cheap
Um, no. They were never free. And cheap, less expensive is more accurate...relative to what they are now...ridiculous. I grew up in the 60s...people saved up for college back then. If you went to college without you or your parents saving up in advance, you did it wrong. But yes, college prices today are ridiculous.
I've never "tweeted" except through my stereo speakers, and often wondered what am I missing, but never cared enough to investigate. What can Twitter give me that I'm not already getting elsewhere?
And just a comment on the verbage. Maybe it's me, but Tweeting sounds a bit too metro-sexual for my liking. Additionally, I've never been a follower, why would anyone want to follow the trivial postings of anyone? Are there significant things we're missing?
I hear you and understand that position. Some people take the meaning literally, but SCOTUS has not always taken that path in regards to this or other constitutional issues. Some believe in a "living" document, while others believe in strict interpretation. I'm personally of the latter persuasion, but that doesn't matter if I'm taken to court over something that has been ruled on as a new interpretation. I don't like it, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand. For example, I'm sure the founders didn't mean that freedom of speech should mean that I can yell fire in a crowded theater, so I'm fine that the courts have made an interpretation to the contrary.
I haven't read all of your posts...I was only responding to this tread. My point is mainly that there is no middle ground because of the dogma of both the pro and anti-gun groups. As a former NRA member (many years ago), I left them because I saw the extremist views of some "pry my cold dead fingers" types. Yet on the other side, we have many who will make claims about guns that when they couldn't tell the difference between a automatic and a semi, yet want to ban things they know nothing about.
For what it's worth, I'm all for background checks...no loopholes, as well as some other rules. I'd even consider mandatory training...I had to attend a multi-week class to go deer hunting as a teen, and that seems reasonable to me in order to learn gun safety.
We don't seem to be willing to address the mentally ill in this country, and I'm going to lump in drug addicts and alcoholics...none of whom in my opinion should have weapons, if they've been found legally incompetent, or convicted.
I know plenty of gun owners who would be willing to accept some additional limitations, but see the constant erosion through the trickle of new laws (vs. the actual enforcement of those already in place) as a signal that the other side is lying when they're only interested in "common sense" changes. "Common sense" has become code for confiscation to many because of this.
So, when you said dogma, I reacted...not to you so much as the fact that it seems like we've become very polarized on this and many other issues as a nation, and incapable of open discussion without name calling and bluster. As you can see someone marked my post off-topic...I wouldn't expect anything less.
Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
Brazil is certainly not a "third-world" country (now called Least Developed Countries); it's a member of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) which are all large, rapidly developing economies and potential future superpowers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying this to be flippant, nor to minimize the dedication and hard work and sacrifices of athletes who compete at the highest levels. But seriously, when do we stop giving in to corporate greed and corruption? The IOC is organized thuggery, and there are uncomfortable parallels between the Olympic Games and the Hunger Games. Yes, it's an extreme comparison; but a little thought, especially in the context of your argument, makes it seem somewhat less extreme.
Few, if any of the athletes care, or even know. There are exceptions... Look back on the history of the AAU, and Prefonaine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... And look at the shit storm that is the NCAA, and lawsuits by football and basketball players. But, in the big scheme of things, most just want to compete. I swam competitively, for hours, six days a week, all year long for several years. Money, or even scholarship, was never the goal, it was just about friendly competition, and our team beating the other teams. 40+ years later, I've still got former teammates who feel like brothers to me.
Don't bother debating with them. They think they're a progressive socialist, but are really just a fucking moron.
As someone who's quite the opposite of a progressive socialist, I'll say you're being a moron if you're not considering the possibility that these people will help spread those diseases.
Wouldn't there have been bans prior to the Olympics? How about neighboring countries?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... The legal definition is the only one that matters. It's defined in the Constitution.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
We are not at war with Russia. They are not a declared enemy. Nobody has ever been charged with treason under lesser circumstances.
220,000 new customers - 4000 existing customers = 216,000 more clients. Where's the downside for them exactly?
Clearly, you don't know the meaning of the word. Please look up the definition in the Constitution.
Yes, it's just you. Do you see it as a serious request? Then yes, it's just you.
The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States.
Have I got this right?
Um, no. It was a private server, and she didn't have any classified data there, so what's the problem?
This is nothing more than the DNC/media distracting everyone from the hot story about how the democratic nomination was stolen from Bernie. The entire primary was a farce, but we'll just fire the chairwoman, and call it all good. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. This is not democracy, this is a coronation by a group of inside elitists, and the rest of you plebes can suck it up. We'll just point to Trump and scream about how everything is his fault.
Please google treason. Clue: This isn't.
If, as HRC claimed, there was nothing in the 30,000 emails, other than personal stuff, where's the danger? Or, could it possibly be that wasn't factual??? Oh, say it isn't so.
Oh, and one more thing. How would you react when it's the company you work for that gets the "death penalty"? I work in a company that had over 100,000 employees. Are you willing to put all of them along with their families, and all of the suppliers and their businesses at risk? You'd likely have a significant impact on half a million people if someone at the top screwed up. It's basically the same reason that, as a conservative, I agreed with Obama bailing out the auto industry.
Those bad CEOs are the ones responsible for decisions such as the tax dodges that result in EVERYONE ELSE paying more than their fair share of taxes.
We need a corporate "death penalty" to force shareholders to look at the underlying fundamentals of the business, including ethics.
Completely unreasonable. Do you have a 401k? Do you know all the companies that they invest in? Have you researched all of them? Or, do you have shares of the Dow, S&P, Wilshire, etc., indexes? Are you going to research all the members? No.
All that said, we do need to penalize those responsible for corporate misdeeds. The fines that a couple Wall St. firms got from the housing bubble are barely a slap on the wrist, and some of the leaders needed to do stretches in jail. Until we see such penalties, we can expect repeated screw ups.
He didn't imply that illegal actions aren't our business. Could you possibly stretch the intention of his comment more? Also, you clearly have no concept of the actual meaning of libertarian, and a severe lack of civility calling names for no good reason.
Ah, so that was probably during the "free" college days in CA.
The feds have already declared it a currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
$2/semester? How old are you? And, where in the hell did you go?
I did a semester at community college in MI back in '76 and 14 credit hours cost around $400.
Degrees used to be free of course, or at least quite cheap
Um, no. They were never free. And cheap, less expensive is more accurate...relative to what they are now...ridiculous. I grew up in the 60s...people saved up for college back then. If you went to college without you or your parents saving up in advance, you did it wrong. But yes, college prices today are ridiculous.
I've never "tweeted" except through my stereo speakers, and often wondered what am I missing, but never cared enough to investigate. What can Twitter give me that I'm not already getting elsewhere?
And just a comment on the verbage. Maybe it's me, but Tweeting sounds a bit too metro-sexual for my liking. Additionally, I've never been a follower, why would anyone want to follow the trivial postings of anyone? Are there significant things we're missing?
I hear you and understand that position. Some people take the meaning literally, but SCOTUS has not always taken that path in regards to this or other constitutional issues. Some believe in a "living" document, while others believe in strict interpretation. I'm personally of the latter persuasion, but that doesn't matter if I'm taken to court over something that has been ruled on as a new interpretation. I don't like it, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand. For example, I'm sure the founders didn't mean that freedom of speech should mean that I can yell fire in a crowded theater, so I'm fine that the courts have made an interpretation to the contrary.
I haven't read all of your posts...I was only responding to this tread. My point is mainly that there is no middle ground because of the dogma of both the pro and anti-gun groups. As a former NRA member (many years ago), I left them because I saw the extremist views of some "pry my cold dead fingers" types. Yet on the other side, we have many who will make claims about guns that when they couldn't tell the difference between a automatic and a semi, yet want to ban things they know nothing about.
For what it's worth, I'm all for background checks...no loopholes, as well as some other rules. I'd even consider mandatory training...I had to attend a multi-week class to go deer hunting as a teen, and that seems reasonable to me in order to learn gun safety.
We don't seem to be willing to address the mentally ill in this country, and I'm going to lump in drug addicts and alcoholics...none of whom in my opinion should have weapons, if they've been found legally incompetent, or convicted.
I know plenty of gun owners who would be willing to accept some additional limitations, but see the constant erosion through the trickle of new laws (vs. the actual enforcement of those already in place) as a signal that the other side is lying when they're only interested in "common sense" changes. "Common sense" has become code for confiscation to many because of this.
So, when you said dogma, I reacted...not to you so much as the fact that it seems like we've become very polarized on this and many other issues as a nation, and incapable of open discussion without name calling and bluster. As you can see someone marked my post off-topic...I wouldn't expect anything less.
Did you skip over..
Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
There's no consensus.
Guns make is vastly more likely they will succeed.
An assumption. Studies have been unclear (I linked it elsewhere).
Not on a per-capita basis, which is really what matters. Go to this link and sort on homicides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Type "Brazil third world" into google:
Brazil is certainly not a "third-world" country (now called Least Developed Countries); it's a member of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) which are all large, rapidly developing economies and potential future superpowers.