Jr. deliberately made that mistake. He blamed Dad's "mistake" of not ousting Saddam for costing him the re-election. So Jr. wanted revenge on Saddam for costing Daddy a reelection.
The torture system was designed to get guilty people to confess [...]
The plea bargain system is a threat designed to elicit a confession.
Yes, that's what I said. Torture included threats of future harm, in addition to immediate pain. That the immediate pain isn't there doesn't make the threats of future harm any less. After that, it's all a discussion of whether the future harm threatened justifies the emotional connotations of "torture".
The plea bargain system tries to avoid both the bad acts and the fundamental undermining.
Through the use of torture to elicit confessions.
Make it simple. Post a single defintion of "torture" that I can't reasonably claim is met by the plea bargain system. Don't forget, the plea bargains are threats of future harm if you don't confess. I've not seen a mainstream definition of torture that didn't include that. True they don't anally rape you before demanding your confession under threats of repeated anal rape. But they do threaten anal rape if you don't confess.
An analog involving violence would be something like "confess or I'll kill you", not torture. That's not the same thing as torture.
But that is torture. Go read the definitions and post one that proves me wrong. Should be easy. Right?
...pleading innocence also doesn't prove said innocence...
No defendant ever pleads innocence,
His words work great. Suspects do "plead" innocent. But court doesn't allow pleadings, only pleas. There's a difference. You can plead with the prosecutor in interrogation. But you give a plea to the judge.
For a justice system to function guilty people need to have reason to confess their guilt and engage in a process of reconciliation with the community.
That was the basis of the torture of the inquisition. The current plea bargains allowed fit every definition of torture I've ever seen. You are supporting a policy of torture.
Yes. But they throw you in jail for 2 years, waiting for the trial on a crime with a 6 month max sentence, usually fine only. Fighting for your rights costs more than giving them up. The rational actor will give up his rights. It takes the irrational person to fight.
For years we talked about movie accounting as if it was a bad thing, but the multinationals took it as a blueprint. Make something. Doesn't matter where. Sell it to a subsidiary in Ireland for $1. Sell it from that subsidiary to the final country for retail price + 50% (so you don't accidentally make a profit). Ireland subsidiary makes everything, and is the only profitable arm of the company. Bonus points if you set up fake marketing companies that charge more than R&D and production costs combined, but have no relation to the final sale price or number of units sold.
One of the problems with China is that because so few countries engaged China before Nixon, China isn't a signatory on many treaties. MS could be getting taxed on Ireland profits because the books in China don't match international standards.
This is why there should be a 5% tax on revenue. Profits can be manipulated. Revenue less so.
Never mind the fact that it is undeniable, whether born here or not, that citizenship was renounced when he lived in Indonesia as required by Indonesian law to attend school.
Required by law, and performed aren't the same thing.
Or the fact that only one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth, which does not meet the required "natural born citizen" as defined and discussed in various texts and Federalist papers.
I have two children, born outside the USA, both of which were born natural born citizens. The requirement being *one* parent being a US citizen who has spent at least one day in the USA. The law isn't explicit about a minor mother who is a US citizen. But likely that would have been allowed at the time, as it is now, and the default is to give the citizenship at birth.
Even if citizenship was not denounced while in Indonesia, at best, he has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him, as he holds allegiances (citizenship) to another country, as explained by the constitution framers.
So you must be a citizen of Indonesia to go to school there, and Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship?
Also, there is no condition that the President may not be a dual citizen. What the framers explain, and what they put in the document must not agree on that point. And the Constitution trumps revisionist recollections of framer's writings. Remember, they were all foreign born, and nearly all what would now be considered dual-citizens. But the rules were so much different then that it isn't really comparable.
The Certificate shows Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa". Kenya did not even exist until December 1963, two years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. Obama's father could not have been born in a country that did not yet exist.
Yes he could. Let's say that Texas secedes from the Union. My children will have Texas, USA as their father's birth place, despite them already having been born. Kenya is the area of East Africa, with East Africa clearly stated as the country. The fact that my birth location is listed as Texas isn't an edit, or pre-cognition.
Like all the other objections, this is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Like the hospital names. I worked for Company A at one point. Now, it's Company C. My LinkedIn profile was entered with it as Company A long ago. At some point, LinkedIn retroactively changed the name of the company I worked for from Company A to Company C, despite the fact that Company C existed at the time, and I never worked there.
The same happens with birth certificates. The information is digitized, and a digital copy is printed on request. My sister's birth hospital changed its name. Any birth certificate she has printed now has the "wrong name" on it as well.
The fact that reality proves birthers wrong has no impact on their opinions. The Republican governor of HI verified the birth certificate personally, the first time such an action has been done. Is Obama a Republican conspiracy?
I the government is supporting your right to safety and such, it does so taking away the right to abuse others. That right is more important to Randians.
Reminds me of the Swine Flu when it was big. The fatality rate was really high among healthy males, but lower in women and children, a first for the flu. But the problem was that it was in Mexico, primarily in poor farmers. They woke up sick. They had the choice to quit their job and slowly die of starvation when they can't find a job, or go to work and probably survive the cold they had. They had the flu. They worked the fields until they dropped dead. In the US, we panicked. Then it came to the US. I got it. It wasn't even the worst flu I've ever had. The statistics returned to "normal" once it was common in larger populations that more resembled the average.
Ebola is a death sentence in Africa. That hasn't been true in the US. And likely wouldn't be, even with a wider spread.
Repairs on buried cable is just the opposite. Even finding the problem is harder and many repairs involve a lot of digging.
Conveniently, most of the time there's an underground power cable fault, someone has already done the digging for you. Often with some guys in orange vests updating their CVs pointing at the exact location of the fault in the ground and blaming the other guys, who just left.
Ice on the lines, and other things can cause problems that don't happen when the lines are buried. Overall Buried is more reliable and cheaper. But it's pretty close for cost, just not reliability. So some areas buried may be more expensive in the long run, not counting the more frequent outages with above-ground lines.
Here, the power company will trim them, and nobody else can. But then they'll send the bill to other people. Nobody should be trimming near the trees, except for people who are electrically trained. Or so says the electric company.
Ah, so you admit you are a know liar, trying to waste the time of others. You could have saved time and posted that as your resume, rather than the lie about 18.5 years as a lawyer.
There are piles of abandonware. And lots of books printed with a short run. But anything made after Mickey Mouse will be protected to the end of time. There are books that will be lost because the runs were short, and you can't copy them. The author is dead, and often the people who inherited "other" from the estate don't even know they are a copyright holder of a book, let alone what to do with it. Speaking of which, what does happen? My father is dead. He had involvement in a number of books (he was a history professor, among other things), and copyright isn't something documents and puts somewhere. So if I do own a copyright, I don't know, and can't know. Any copyrighted work of his is lost forever.
Copyright is provably doing the opposite of what the Constitution requires of it. Thus (at least in my opinion), all copyright law in the US is unconstitutional.
I don't think the **AA has gone after anyone for pirating "It's A Wonderful Life" or "Zero Hour", but they seem to find a lot of targets for violations of modern, currently published work's copyright.
You want old, but enforced like a Nazi? Try Happy Birthday...
The point is that the government got their bite the first time around.
Yes. They tax the person, not the money. Each person is taxed once and only once. That's double-dipping, to do something once and only once.
Tax-and-spenders like you will insure that the Mad Max scenario takes place.
Fuck you, you lying sack of shit. I want a smaller government. The "keep spending high and cut taxes will starve the beast" misanthropes like you will ruin the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Jr. deliberately made that mistake. He blamed Dad's "mistake" of not ousting Saddam for costing him the re-election. So Jr. wanted revenge on Saddam for costing Daddy a reelection.
The economy (not really his fault) and the vote split between the Republicans and Ross Perot is what sunk him.
In my circle of friends, Ross Perot stole Clinton votes, not Perot votes.
So the question wasn't guilt, but DNA match. That's not necessarily the same thing.
The torture system was designed to get guilty people to confess [...]
The plea bargain system is a threat designed to elicit a confession.
Yes, that's what I said. Torture included threats of future harm, in addition to immediate pain. That the immediate pain isn't there doesn't make the threats of future harm any less. After that, it's all a discussion of whether the future harm threatened justifies the emotional connotations of "torture".
The plea bargain system tries to avoid both the bad acts and the fundamental undermining.
Through the use of torture to elicit confessions.
Make it simple. Post a single defintion of "torture" that I can't reasonably claim is met by the plea bargain system. Don't forget, the plea bargains are threats of future harm if you don't confess. I've not seen a mainstream definition of torture that didn't include that. True they don't anally rape you before demanding your confession under threats of repeated anal rape. But they do threaten anal rape if you don't confess.
An analog involving violence would be something like "confess or I'll kill you", not torture. That's not the same thing as torture.
But that is torture. Go read the definitions and post one that proves me wrong. Should be easy. Right?
And that's only the number that could be proven innocent, the number who were actually not guilty is much higher.
...pleading innocence also doesn't prove said innocence...
No defendant ever pleads innocence,
His words work great. Suspects do "plead" innocent. But court doesn't allow pleadings, only pleas. There's a difference. You can plead with the prosecutor in interrogation. But you give a plea to the judge.
For a justice system to function guilty people need to have reason to confess their guilt and engage in a process of reconciliation with the community.
That was the basis of the torture of the inquisition. The current plea bargains allowed fit every definition of torture I've ever seen. You are supporting a policy of torture.
Yes. But they throw you in jail for 2 years, waiting for the trial on a crime with a 6 month max sentence, usually fine only. Fighting for your rights costs more than giving them up. The rational actor will give up his rights. It takes the irrational person to fight.
That's why corporations should be taxed a smaller amount on revenue. Forget profit. Tax revenue. It's the only effective way to tax a multinational.
For years we talked about movie accounting as if it was a bad thing, but the multinationals took it as a blueprint. Make something. Doesn't matter where. Sell it to a subsidiary in Ireland for $1. Sell it from that subsidiary to the final country for retail price + 50% (so you don't accidentally make a profit). Ireland subsidiary makes everything, and is the only profitable arm of the company. Bonus points if you set up fake marketing companies that charge more than R&D and production costs combined, but have no relation to the final sale price or number of units sold.
One of the problems with China is that because so few countries engaged China before Nixon, China isn't a signatory on many treaties. MS could be getting taxed on Ireland profits because the books in China don't match international standards.
This is why there should be a 5% tax on revenue. Profits can be manipulated. Revenue less so.
In most cases, insurance rates are much higher than before
I thought that the rates dropped for most..
So it would be the same as Bush Jr. Got it.
Never mind the fact that it is undeniable, whether born here or not, that citizenship was renounced when he lived in Indonesia as required by Indonesian law to attend school.
Required by law, and performed aren't the same thing.
Or the fact that only one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth, which does not meet the required "natural born citizen" as defined and discussed in various texts and Federalist papers.
I have two children, born outside the USA, both of which were born natural born citizens. The requirement being *one* parent being a US citizen who has spent at least one day in the USA. The law isn't explicit about a minor mother who is a US citizen. But likely that would have been allowed at the time, as it is now, and the default is to give the citizenship at birth.
Even if citizenship was not denounced while in Indonesia, at best, he has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him, as he holds allegiances (citizenship) to another country, as explained by the constitution framers.
So you must be a citizen of Indonesia to go to school there, and Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship?
Also, there is no condition that the President may not be a dual citizen. What the framers explain, and what they put in the document must not agree on that point. And the Constitution trumps revisionist recollections of framer's writings. Remember, they were all foreign born, and nearly all what would now be considered dual-citizens. But the rules were so much different then that it isn't really comparable.
The Certificate shows Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa". Kenya did not even exist until December 1963, two years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. Obama's father could not have been born in a country that did not yet exist.
Yes he could. Let's say that Texas secedes from the Union. My children will have Texas, USA as their father's birth place, despite them already having been born. Kenya is the area of East Africa, with East Africa clearly stated as the country. The fact that my birth location is listed as Texas isn't an edit, or pre-cognition.
Like all the other objections, this is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Like the hospital names. I worked for Company A at one point. Now, it's Company C. My LinkedIn profile was entered with it as Company A long ago. At some point, LinkedIn retroactively changed the name of the company I worked for from Company A to Company C, despite the fact that Company C existed at the time, and I never worked there.
The same happens with birth certificates. The information is digitized, and a digital copy is printed on request. My sister's birth hospital changed its name. Any birth certificate she has printed now has the "wrong name" on it as well.
The fact that reality proves birthers wrong has no impact on their opinions. The Republican governor of HI verified the birth certificate personally, the first time such an action has been done. Is Obama a Republican conspiracy?
I the government is supporting your right to safety and such, it does so taking away the right to abuse others. That right is more important to Randians.
Reminds me of the Swine Flu when it was big. The fatality rate was really high among healthy males, but lower in women and children, a first for the flu. But the problem was that it was in Mexico, primarily in poor farmers. They woke up sick. They had the choice to quit their job and slowly die of starvation when they can't find a job, or go to work and probably survive the cold they had. They had the flu. They worked the fields until they dropped dead. In the US, we panicked. Then it came to the US. I got it. It wasn't even the worst flu I've ever had. The statistics returned to "normal" once it was common in larger populations that more resembled the average.
Ebola is a death sentence in Africa. That hasn't been true in the US. And likely wouldn't be, even with a wider spread.
Repairs on buried cable is just the opposite. Even finding the problem is harder and many repairs involve a lot of digging.
Conveniently, most of the time there's an underground power cable fault, someone has already done the digging for you. Often with some guys in orange vests updating their CVs pointing at the exact location of the fault in the ground and blaming the other guys, who just left.
Ice on the lines, and other things can cause problems that don't happen when the lines are buried. Overall Buried is more reliable and cheaper. But it's pretty close for cost, just not reliability. So some areas buried may be more expensive in the long run, not counting the more frequent outages with above-ground lines.
Here, the power company will trim them, and nobody else can. But then they'll send the bill to other people. Nobody should be trimming near the trees, except for people who are electrically trained. Or so says the electric company.
Ah, so you admit you are a know liar, trying to waste the time of others. You could have saved time and posted that as your resume, rather than the lie about 18.5 years as a lawyer.
Copyright is provably doing the opposite of what the Constitution requires of it. Thus (at least in my opinion), all copyright law in the US is unconstitutional.
I don't think the **AA has gone after anyone for pirating "It's A Wonderful Life" or "Zero Hour", but they seem to find a lot of targets for violations of modern, currently published work's copyright.
You want old, but enforced like a Nazi? Try Happy Birthday...
You said I was a tax-spender. If you don't like straw men, stop using them, you lying hypocrite.
The point is that the government got their bite the first time around.
Yes. They tax the person, not the money. Each person is taxed once and only once. That's double-dipping, to do something once and only once.
Tax-and-spenders like you will insure that the Mad Max scenario takes place.
Fuck you, you lying sack of shit. I want a smaller government. The "keep spending high and cut taxes will starve the beast" misanthropes like you will ruin the world.
What job did you do for the 18.5 years of immersion?