Unfortunately, those who are unable to think rationally believe it is a lifestyle choice. They actually believe people choose to go through the agony of having to decide whether or not they are going to be ostracized in certain parts of the country. If you ask them why they choose to be heterosexual, well, they typically don't like to answer that in an sort of cogent fashion, if they answer at all.
Not directly. They're required to provide the system and means to protect your rights if they have been violated, even by the government.
In practice, that's frequently an impossible system to get to work for you if it's the government trampling on your rights. The courts and the government work so closely together that they often collude to prevent a redress of grievances against the government.
I'd guess the answer would be that both multiple partner relationships and platonic relationships should be able to enjoy the same benefits. They are both relationships undertaken by the consent of all involved.
That would be my response anyway, since I'm completely in line with what was said in Pollux's comment. They may believe differently though, so don't take this as me definitively answering for someone else.
The highest taxes are on labor though. Taxes on capital gains in the US are far less than what is paid in labor taxes. Additionally, employers have to pay a tax on labor, which inevitably comes out of what is paid to employees (or restricts the number of employees hired).
Most people aren't concerned about the NSA looking at them right now. They're concerned about how this data may be used in the future should they suddenly find themselves with an administration which has a problem with their views on issue X and now has the means to identify all the people who have those particular views on issue X.
Then support a Constitutional Amendment that revokes the 9th. Otherwise, you're supporting the willful ignoring of a system that you may one day need to use. If it happens that someone is in power who doesn't like you (for whatever reason that may be, some petty, some not), they'll use the old justification that you supported saying the ends justify the means.
Apparently you have no problem with what McCarthy did, since that's exactly what you're attempting to justify.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted a power that overrides privacy. Taken together, the 4th and 9th Amendments should guarantee that privacy is a right which may only be overridden by a warrant issued based on probable cause.
The government powers should be read as follows: Order Deny, Allow Deny from all Allow powers as written in Constitution
Unfortunately, it's been re-interpreted as: Order Allow, Deny Allow from all Deny as few powers as possible without causing a revolt
The 9th Amendment covers it quite well. Since the government is not granted an explicit power to infringe the right of privacy, it is a protected right.
Probable cause would require that they have reason to believe the phone was relevant to the accident. It has to be considered a relevant factor prior to the search. The 4th prohibits searches to determine if the thing searched is relevant. Relevant is a necessary precondition of probable cause.
Yeah, it would be a lot easier to deal with radical Tea Party types if they weren't so willing to allow their ideology to be co-opted by rapid pro-authoritarians. They're now little better than the far left extremists like ELF, though only the border Nazis and some militia groups have devolved into the type of domestic terrorists that make up ELF.
The CIA was, at one point, prohibited from spying on solely domestic targets.
That's apparently no longer the case. I am not sure if the prohibition was legal or by executive order, but I don't believe it was repealed in either event. Not that the government cares about such formalities anymore. If they get caught, they just pass a law retroactively forgiving those who were complicit in their crimes.
This is very true, and something most people miss whenever they are faced with an arena dominated by enormous amounts of money. It's not about the money, it's about the desire for power for those throwing truckloads of money into a particular arena.
If there's no power to be had, the money is usually clean and representative of the larger picture by all those involved.
It's too bad that people like you are a tiny minority among the screaming hordes of the scientifically illiterate and those who take everything "scientific" they read at face value.
It does, it just promotes different ideas on what is good for society. You could make the same statement about D and R, and each would say the other was not promoting the good of society where their views conflicted.
It's a defense against corrupted laws. The ability to help nullify corrupt laws will always trump letting the guilty go free. If you are guilty of violating a corrupt law, it is in the overriding benefit to society that you be able to be guilty and not have to help in your own prosecution. There are ample examples in history where it is right to ignore certain laws wholesale.
Because when one hands a rent controlled apartment to ones offspring, one is disposing of ones own property, not someone elses. Moron.
Funny, I can't think of a single way to read the above to mean handing over a rent-controlled apartment is disposing of some else' property, given that it says the exact opposite. If you intended it to be sarcastic, you failed completely to make that clear.
Indeed. Different types of oil produce different quantities of each distillate, but those quantities are fixed per barrel. The gasoline will still come out in the same quantity, and aside from developing a process to modify the molecular structure of each distillate in an economically feasible way that's not going to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically, they can discriminate.
In theory, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution means that a legal marriage in one State is a legal marriage in all other States.
Unfortunately, those who are unable to think rationally believe it is a lifestyle choice. They actually believe people choose to go through the agony of having to decide whether or not they are going to be ostracized in certain parts of the country. If you ask them why they choose to be heterosexual, well, they typically don't like to answer that in an sort of cogent fashion, if they answer at all.
Not directly. They're required to provide the system and means to protect your rights if they have been violated, even by the government.
In practice, that's frequently an impossible system to get to work for you if it's the government trampling on your rights. The courts and the government work so closely together that they often collude to prevent a redress of grievances against the government.
I'd guess the answer would be that both multiple partner relationships and platonic relationships should be able to enjoy the same benefits. They are both relationships undertaken by the consent of all involved.
That would be my response anyway, since I'm completely in line with what was said in Pollux's comment. They may believe differently though, so don't take this as me definitively answering for someone else.
What is this drive speed difference of which you speak? I'm not aware of Thunderbolt-only drives that are faster than can be connected via eSATA.
Actually, I'm not aware of the existence of any Thunderbolt-only drives.
You seriously didn't get the joke?
The highest taxes are on labor though. Taxes on capital gains in the US are far less than what is paid in labor taxes. Additionally, employers have to pay a tax on labor, which inevitably comes out of what is paid to employees (or restricts the number of employees hired).
The transaction took place in a US territory, giving the US courts jurisdiction.
Most people aren't concerned about the NSA looking at them right now. They're concerned about how this data may be used in the future should they suddenly find themselves with an administration which has a problem with their views on issue X and now has the means to identify all the people who have those particular views on issue X.
Or anyone targeted by McCarthy's hearings.
Then support a Constitutional Amendment that revokes the 9th. Otherwise, you're supporting the willful ignoring of a system that you may one day need to use. If it happens that someone is in power who doesn't like you (for whatever reason that may be, some petty, some not), they'll use the old justification that you supported saying the ends justify the means.
Apparently you have no problem with what McCarthy did, since that's exactly what you're attempting to justify.
The 9th, however, does guarantee a right to privacy.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted a power that overrides privacy. Taken together, the 4th and 9th Amendments should guarantee that privacy is a right which may only be overridden by a warrant issued based on probable cause.
The government powers should be read as follows:
Order Deny, Allow
Deny from all
Allow powers as written in Constitution
Unfortunately, it's been re-interpreted as:
Order Allow, Deny
Allow from all
Deny as few powers as possible without causing a revolt
The 9th Amendment covers it quite well. Since the government is not granted an explicit power to infringe the right of privacy, it is a protected right.
A big part of the copyright problem is that copyright is now functionally a forever monopoly. Nothing entered the US public domain this last year.
Probable cause would require that they have reason to believe the phone was relevant to the accident. It has to be considered a relevant factor prior to the search. The 4th prohibits searches to determine if the thing searched is relevant. Relevant is a necessary precondition of probable cause.
Yeah, it would be a lot easier to deal with radical Tea Party types if they weren't so willing to allow their ideology to be co-opted by rapid pro-authoritarians. They're now little better than the far left extremists like ELF, though only the border Nazis and some militia groups have devolved into the type of domestic terrorists that make up ELF.
The CIA was, at one point, prohibited from spying on solely domestic targets.
That's apparently no longer the case. I am not sure if the prohibition was legal or by executive order, but I don't believe it was repealed in either event. Not that the government cares about such formalities anymore. If they get caught, they just pass a law retroactively forgiving those who were complicit in their crimes.
This is very true, and something most people miss whenever they are faced with an arena dominated by enormous amounts of money. It's not about the money, it's about the desire for power for those throwing truckloads of money into a particular arena.
If there's no power to be had, the money is usually clean and representative of the larger picture by all those involved.
It's too bad that people like you are a tiny minority among the screaming hordes of the scientifically illiterate and those who take everything "scientific" they read at face value.
It does, it just promotes different ideas on what is good for society. You could make the same statement about D and R, and each would say the other was not promoting the good of society where their views conflicted.
It's a defense against corrupted laws. The ability to help nullify corrupt laws will always trump letting the guilty go free. If you are guilty of violating a corrupt law, it is in the overriding benefit to society that you be able to be guilty and not have to help in your own prosecution. There are ample examples in history where it is right to ignore certain laws wholesale.
Because when one hands a rent controlled apartment to ones offspring, one is disposing of ones own property, not someone elses. Moron.
Funny, I can't think of a single way to read the above to mean handing over a rent-controlled apartment is disposing of some else' property, given that it says the exact opposite. If you intended it to be sarcastic, you failed completely to make that clear.
Actually, it seems far easier to part a poor person from their money than a rich person. Just look at the personal consumption habits of the US.
Indeed. Different types of oil produce different quantities of each distillate, but those quantities are fixed per barrel. The gasoline will still come out in the same quantity, and aside from developing a process to modify the molecular structure of each distillate in an economically feasible way that's not going to change.