There are good reasons for that assumption given the state of things before the civil service act. As bad as you may think it is now, at times it was worse.
If it was one person like you and thw parent keep trying to devolve it to, you might have a case but it was more than one person, it was organised, and it was done with the intent of harming someone for political speech made a number of years previously.
As for voting for another candidate, it certainly would be retaliation. I would think it was justified also. You don't have to believe it was justified and when others who support that politicians stance change their behavior so as their support would not lead to retaliation on them, it would be because of my retaliation on the original
I'm not saying you canbot act or react, i'm callung a spade a spade. Now you have completely lost the point and along with the other guy are insisting we sugar coat reality to sooth your concience. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself it wasn't wrong by hiding reality?
Look, i have already said whether the retaliation was or was not justified doesn't change the fact it is retaliation. You can make the case that the retaliation was justified and you may convince others of it. That doesn't change the fact it was retaliation. The parent wants to sugar coat reality and sanitize what happened as retaliation seems distasteful to him or something.
Now i never put it in the context of good or bad, i specifically attempted to avoid that because the important point of the matter was that people are choosing to post AC instead of having some comments associated with an online persona to avoid retaliation in the future. In the past i have expressed my disdain for the retaliation on the whole as it has never been demonstrated that he ever discriminated against anyone for his political beliefs but was drove out of a job he deserved due to retaliation on his. The era of blacklists because someone is a comunist, because they supported a black politician, because they want a certain definition of marriage and don't want to be forced to accept behavior their concious or religious freedom finds objectionable needs to end. Retaliation and intolorance or political beliefs can harm society. Its why any congressman can say anything on the floor of congress with constitutionsl immunity. Can you imagine anti war politicians and or their supporters being jailed or drummed out of their jobs. Can you imagine what the country would be like is people protesting the NSA data collection have to fear for their jobs? Retaliaton is retaliation even if you can justify it. I think it is wrong wgen it is done for political expression but the point was that people are changing their behavior to avoid it happening to them in tbe future when "times change"
I'm not sure what you said that qas different than what i said other than you obviously are upset over it.
Here are some more interesting facts. The majority of tax payers who fund government spondored cancer research cannot afford the drugs their tax dollars helped produce.
Also, the term probably when prefacing motivation of someone else is speculation. It is based in current actions of the person which lwad to the speculaton. So lets take a deep breath, now another, and agree that we agree. I'm just not angry or otherwise emotional about it.
In any investigation, some level of suspected guilt is always present otherwise there will not be an investigation. But how do you determine the truth of which viewpiont if people involved refuse to cooperate and documents involved are being purposely withheld? We just got a cache of documents pertaining to this from the white house that were withheld until a court finally ordered their release. Now documents are being claimed to have been lossed despite being told weeks ago they were backed up on separate servers.
If that makes people assume guilt of some sort, i'm not sure it is out of nothing.
It is actually worse than no one was blocked from donating to one of these organizations. Donar lists were being used to select for audits and being passed to opposition groups if the claims in the current lawsuits are accurate.
So it became known early on that if you donated to one of these groups trying to get tax status that you would be exposed to an IRS audit. This is one of the accusations that got congress involved before the IRS issued its report and admision.
Actually, it isn't so much where the bodies are burried and more the civil service act. It limits the ability of administrations to rid non cabinet level positions and stack government with incompetent friends and donars. Of course the latest craze is to create a new position, call it a czar which has absolutely no power outside of recomending something to the administration and the gaft runs rich again.
But this civil service act limits an administration's abilitty to clean house and makes sure somewhat competent people fill most of the positions.
As for Learner being a bush appointee, it doesn't matter. We already have confirmation that she was working with someone in the white house. The extent and degree of legitimacy in that is what is trying to be determined.
Hypocrisy is not always bad though. I smoke, i tell my kids not to and will punish them if i catch them smoking. A neighbor from years ago broke his neck back yard wrestling- after the then WWF said do not do this at home. His then idol, jake the snake roberts did the same shit he did. Luckily, he wasn't paralyzed. I know a guy who dropped out of school but tells kids to stay in school.
Some hypocrisy is good, some inconsequential, and some bad. And most of that is subject to interpretation too.
Many scientist want to do science for the sake of science but the vast majority of them do it for someone profit else they wouldn't have funding. Even gov funding is largely about profits and no matter how you slice it, the funding came from profits somewheee in time.
That being said, i am not surprised byy Gates' comment. Microsoft used to allow certain amounts of pirating wiyhout bitching. They even had licensing terms that allowed operating systems and certain programs to be installed on more than one computer (provided only one instance was being used at a time). This is largely what gave them a foothold into the home markets because business systems could have some functionality duplicated at home before computers were as popular as they became. It just means more profit down the road.
Now that gates is older, he probably cares about more. He probably understands there is more to life than yourself.
You were taught wrongly in history class. Germany, South Korea, and Japan are instances in which proves you wrong directly. We can extend that even further to most of free Europe as we helped rebuild it as well as fronted the lion's share of military spending across the cold war through a little known organization callef NATO.
Now, there have been failures and i would put Russia on the fence as one. But most of our allies today is a payoff from helping them at one point in time.
Even Mexico is an allie mostly due to our aid. They certainly have been courted but potential enemies and told them to piss off (not in so many words). And considering a history of waring with the US (even by proxy) they had good reason to flip us off and piss on the border fence in the past.
It all depends on our policies and their implementation. Russia, i think would be a different story if we had different leaders. Of course if we had different leaders, a lot of things in history would have been different from our relationship to Iran, Chavez, and even North Korea. But hindsight is a lot easier then when the shoe actually drops.
What is going on with China and India is largely private sector and for profit motivations. Thats entirelt different than attempting to prop up a failing nation we want rebuilt as allies politically.
Do you know why we imported so much korean and japanese crap way back when it was crap? Largely the same reasons and while South Korea still has a military dependency on the US, Japan hadn't needed it ever since they were allowed to have a standing military again. And yet they are still very friendly to us.
It can be racist depending on how it is offered. It is because of the association with ancesters racist trot forward in their attemps to dehumanize the black population. Of course they put it differently and i'm trying to not be offensive in my wording. The same is said and used with fried chicken and water melon in the US because of historically utilitarian reasons (chicken was cheap to a poor population and like its name suggests, water melon contains a lot of water which is a neccesity in fields on hot days. Its basically nature's canteen.)
However, all these foods are consumed still and somewhat still popular with poorer communities. Its how it is offered or obtained that can carry the racist notations. I doubt it will br seen as racist. I'm just curious if enough carotene will be present to start turning things orange like excessive carot eating can do. Durring the cold war, we claimed our pilots couls see better thsn eagles and suggested it was from eating carrots. Operatives would then watch russians turn orange trying to match it and we gathered information about where bases were located and who the jet pilots were. Even Disney was in on it.
Not doubting you but it doesn't matter what the ambient pressure is kept at.
This will be an entirely enclosed system. That mean it can be presurized independent of the local atmosphere. Steam escaping would condisate potentially causing problems not to mention gravity anr floating water. So it is enclosed and likely already able to handle its own pressure containment.
The judge can order the executive to do something... just like they did with FDR and he said make me while congress openly considered packing the supream court when it ruled against the new deal legislation. Of course the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in order to head that off and make portion of the new deal appear constitutional.
So i guess we already have the road map for what happens if they ignore the court or congress.
Then she returns then and doesn't disclose their contents.
Of course she can use her new found knowlege to make decisions pertaining to the case that will seem arbitrary to the rest of us. But i think the chances of that here are slim.
Actually, out sourcing like this made perfect sense.
It started at a time which we wanted to calm down a threat. You, lile many others in this thread think this was only about being cheep and saving money. It is or was not. When we started buying from the Russians, it was about funneling money to them in ways that didn't create resentment while dealing with their concerns about continued US military strength after the colapse of the USSR.
In short, this had more diplomatic reasoning than financial when it was implemented. It served those diplomatic purposes well until recently when the advantage has been turned around. But ignoring the diplomatic aspect originally involved does not explain the situation properly.
Organic can be covered in pesticides too. The difference is the types. However, no peer reviewed scientific study has ever shown that organic is better or worse than thier nonorganic counter parts from a nutricional standpoint.
The alyernate to healty or good for you is not unhealthy or bad for you.
The wacky part seems to be the unsupported claims of benifits. While the supposed advantages may not be present, it doesn't neccessarily make it worse than other foods or diets- just different. Its like certified organic claiming to be better than non certified organic despite the only differences in the food's life may be someone paying to get certified (and yes, i actually know a farmer who had to create a shell company to get some acreage certified organic next to other land that was 2 years of documentation away from qualifying. He says it is all a scam but gets better prices). That is a whole lot of whacky.
Taking action that has influence or conseqiences to someone else because of their past political speech is retaliation no matter how you define it. This is especially obvious when you participate in an organized campain to encourage others to take the same or similar action citing what that other person supposedly did.
Nothing is disengenuous about that unless it is your constant attemp to force the opinion of justification for the retaliation above any point drawn from it. Just because you think it is "just" doesn't change what it is or how people are reacting to it. I'm sorry that you are uncomfortable when your action of intolorance or the actions of intolorance of others are called what they in reality are, but that doesn't change anything.
Do i need to draw you a picture? I'm suggestiing that people now understand that anything they post or do can later be brought up against you in retaliation so they are posting as AC instead of having it associated with an online identity.
I have said that several times now. I am not sure why you are trying to justify peoples intolorance and ram it in qhile ignoring the point made. I could care less if you think it is fine to retaliate against someone for their political expressions or wvwn if it was or wasn't justified. The point is that it happened and more people are posting AC so it doesn't happen to them.
They knew about it for the previous 4 years and didn't care enough to say anything then all the sudden it was important and used against him. It has never been shown that his beliefs were ever pushed onto anyone in his professional capacity or that anyone had ever been discriminated against due to his one time belief.
It doesn't matter how you justify the intolorant behavior, it still validates my point.
None of that matters to my point. Something that was acceptable 8 or so years ago became unacceptable and was used to retaliate against him. Some people will not want any online persona associated with anything that can be used like that in the future.
As for the specifics, yes, the intolorance of some drove him away when they retaliated against someone for political speech that was the same as the majority of voters who made it state law. But the point wasn't about Mozilla being evil, it was about hoe something you do or say today can and will be used by extreamists in the future against you
The fourth (warrant) doesn't really matter (and yes they did have one). This guy is claiming 1st amendment US constitution and article 1 section 4 of the Illinois state constitution here.
He is saying he has a right to mock politicians. Even if they filed charges, his first amendment claims simply becomes a defense but it appears that the only charges they could file is if the fake account attempted to impersonate a government official in their official capacity. The problem here is that the comments or tweets were about smoking crack, eating pussy, and crap like that in response to the mayor's actions. For the law in question to apply, he would have had to say something like the mayors office is supporting the Gay KKK rally or something of the sorts that would make the public believe government was taking an action or position on something. But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).
Slashdot Mirror
There are good reasons for that assumption given the state of things before the civil service act. As bad as you may think it is now, at times it was worse.
If it was one person like you and thw parent keep trying to devolve it to, you might have a case but it was more than one person, it was organised, and it was done with the intent of harming someone for political speech made a number of years previously.
As for voting for another candidate, it certainly would be retaliation. I would think it was justified also. You don't have to believe it was justified and when others who support that politicians stance change their behavior so as their support would not lead to retaliation on them, it would be because of my retaliation on the original
I'm not saying you canbot act or react, i'm callung a spade a spade. Now you have completely lost the point and along with the other guy are insisting we sugar coat reality to sooth your concience. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself it wasn't wrong by hiding reality?
Look, i have already said whether the retaliation was or was not justified doesn't change the fact it is retaliation. You can make the case that the retaliation was justified and you may convince others of it. That doesn't change the fact it was retaliation. The parent wants to sugar coat reality and sanitize what happened as retaliation seems distasteful to him or something.
Now i never put it in the context of good or bad, i specifically attempted to avoid that because the important point of the matter was that people are choosing to post AC instead of having some comments associated with an online persona to avoid retaliation in the future. In the past i have expressed my disdain for the retaliation on the whole as it has never been demonstrated that he ever discriminated against anyone for his political beliefs but was drove out of a job he deserved due to retaliation on his. The era of blacklists because someone is a comunist, because they supported a black politician, because they want a certain definition of marriage and don't want to be forced to accept behavior their concious or religious freedom finds objectionable needs to end. Retaliation and intolorance or political beliefs can harm society. Its why any congressman can say anything on the floor of congress with constitutionsl immunity. Can you imagine anti war politicians and or their supporters being jailed or drummed out of their jobs. Can you imagine what the country would be like is people protesting the NSA data collection have to fear for their jobs? Retaliaton is retaliation even if you can justify it. I think it is wrong wgen it is done for political expression but the point was that people are changing their behavior to avoid it happening to them in tbe future when "times change"
I'm not sure what you said that qas different than what i said other than you obviously are upset over it.
Here are some more interesting facts. The majority of tax payers who fund government spondored cancer research cannot afford the drugs their tax dollars helped produce.
Also, the term probably when prefacing motivation of someone else is speculation. It is based in current actions of the person which lwad to the speculaton. So lets take a deep breath, now another, and agree that we agree. I'm just not angry or otherwise emotional about it.
In any investigation, some level of suspected guilt is always present otherwise there will not be an investigation. But how do you determine the truth of which viewpiont if people involved refuse to cooperate and documents involved are being purposely withheld? We just got a cache of documents pertaining to this from the white house that were withheld until a court finally ordered their release. Now documents are being claimed to have been lossed despite being told weeks ago they were backed up on separate servers.
If that makes people assume guilt of some sort, i'm not sure it is out of nothing.
It is actually worse than no one was blocked from donating to one of these organizations. Donar lists were being used to select for audits and being passed to opposition groups if the claims in the current lawsuits are accurate.
So it became known early on that if you donated to one of these groups trying to get tax status that you would be exposed to an IRS audit. This is one of the accusations that got congress involved before the IRS issued its report and admision.
Actually, it isn't so much where the bodies are burried and more the civil service act. It limits the ability of administrations to rid non cabinet level positions and stack government with incompetent friends and donars. Of course the latest craze is to create a new position, call it a czar which has absolutely no power outside of recomending something to the administration and the gaft runs rich again.
But this civil service act limits an administration's abilitty to clean house and makes sure somewhat competent people fill most of the positions.
As for Learner being a bush appointee, it doesn't matter. We already have confirmation that she was working with someone in the white house. The extent and degree of legitimacy in that is what is trying to be determined.
Hypocrisy is not always bad though. I smoke, i tell my kids not to and will punish them if i catch them smoking. A neighbor from years ago broke his neck back yard wrestling- after the then WWF said do not do this at home. His then idol, jake the snake roberts did the same shit he did. Luckily, he wasn't paralyzed. I know a guy who dropped out of school but tells kids to stay in school.
Some hypocrisy is good, some inconsequential, and some bad. And most of that is subject to interpretation too.
Wrong - well sort of.
Many scientist want to do science for the sake of science but the vast majority of them do it for someone profit else they wouldn't have funding. Even gov funding is largely about profits and no matter how you slice it, the funding came from profits somewheee in time.
That being said, i am not surprised byy Gates' comment. Microsoft used to allow certain amounts of pirating wiyhout bitching. They even had licensing terms that allowed operating systems and certain programs to be installed on more than one computer (provided only one instance was being used at a time). This is largely what gave them a foothold into the home markets because business systems could have some functionality duplicated at home before computers were as popular as they became. It just means more profit down the road.
Now that gates is older, he probably cares about more. He probably understands there is more to life than yourself.
You were taught wrongly in history class. Germany, South Korea, and Japan are instances in which proves you wrong directly. We can extend that even further to most of free Europe as we helped rebuild it as well as fronted the lion's share of military spending across the cold war through a little known organization callef NATO.
Now, there have been failures and i would put Russia on the fence as one. But most of our allies today is a payoff from helping them at one point in time.
Even Mexico is an allie mostly due to our aid. They certainly have been courted but potential enemies and told them to piss off (not in so many words). And considering a history of waring with the US (even by proxy) they had good reason to flip us off and piss on the border fence in the past.
It all depends on our policies and their implementation. Russia, i think would be a different story if we had different leaders. Of course if we had different leaders, a lot of things in history would have been different from our relationship to Iran, Chavez, and even North Korea. But hindsight is a lot easier then when the shoe actually drops.
What is going on with China and India is largely private sector and for profit motivations. Thats entirelt different than attempting to prop up a failing nation we want rebuilt as allies politically.
Do you know why we imported so much korean and japanese crap way back when it was crap? Largely the same reasons and while South Korea still has a military dependency on the US, Japan hadn't needed it ever since they were allowed to have a standing military again. And yet they are still very friendly to us.
When it is promoted as better or healthy for some line of ailnents. Just like organic.
It can be racist depending on how it is offered. It is because of the association with ancesters racist trot forward in their attemps to dehumanize the black population. Of course they put it differently and i'm trying to not be offensive in my wording. The same is said and used with fried chicken and water melon in the US because of historically utilitarian reasons (chicken was cheap to a poor population and like its name suggests, water melon contains a lot of water which is a neccesity in fields on hot days. Its basically nature's canteen.)
However, all these foods are consumed still and somewhat still popular with poorer communities. Its how it is offered or obtained that can carry the racist notations. I doubt it will br seen as racist. I'm just curious if enough carotene will be present to start turning things orange like excessive carot eating can do. Durring the cold war, we claimed our pilots couls see better thsn eagles and suggested it was from eating carrots. Operatives would then watch russians turn orange trying to match it and we gathered information about where bases were located and who the jet pilots were. Even Disney was in on it.
Not doubting you but it doesn't matter what the ambient pressure is kept at.
This will be an entirely enclosed system. That mean it can be presurized independent of the local atmosphere. Steam escaping would condisate potentially causing problems not to mention gravity anr floating water. So it is enclosed and likely already able to handle its own pressure containment.
The judge can order the executive to do something... just like they did with FDR and he said make me while congress openly considered packing the supream court when it ruled against the new deal legislation. Of course the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in order to head that off and make portion of the new deal appear constitutional.
So i guess we already have the road map for what happens if they ignore the court or congress.
Then she returns then and doesn't disclose their contents.
Of course she can use her new found knowlege to make decisions pertaining to the case that will seem arbitrary to the rest of us. But i think the chances of that here are slim.
Actually, out sourcing like this made perfect sense.
It started at a time which we wanted to calm down a threat. You, lile many others in this thread think this was only about being cheep and saving money. It is or was not. When we started buying from the Russians, it was about funneling money to them in ways that didn't create resentment while dealing with their concerns about continued US military strength after the colapse of the USSR.
In short, this had more diplomatic reasoning than financial when it was implemented. It served those diplomatic purposes well until recently when the advantage has been turned around. But ignoring the diplomatic aspect originally involved does not explain the situation properly.
Organic can be covered in pesticides too. The difference is the types. However, no peer reviewed scientific study has ever shown that organic is better or worse than thier nonorganic counter parts from a nutricional standpoint.
Whackey indeed.
The alyernate to healty or good for you is not unhealthy or bad for you.
The wacky part seems to be the unsupported claims of benifits. While the supposed advantages may not be present, it doesn't neccessarily make it worse than other foods or diets- just different. Its like certified organic claiming to be better than non certified organic despite the only differences in the food's life may be someone paying to get certified (and yes, i actually know a farmer who had to create a shell company to get some acreage certified organic next to other land that was 2 years of documentation away from qualifying. He says it is all a scam but gets better prices). That is a whole lot of whacky.
Taking action that has influence or conseqiences to someone else because of their past political speech is retaliation no matter how you define it. This is especially obvious when you participate in an organized campain to encourage others to take the same or similar action citing what that other person supposedly did.
Nothing is disengenuous about that unless it is your constant attemp to force the opinion of justification for the retaliation above any point drawn from it. Just because you think it is "just" doesn't change what it is or how people are reacting to it. I'm sorry that you are uncomfortable when your action of intolorance or the actions of intolorance of others are called what they in reality are, but that doesn't change anything.
Do i need to draw you a picture? I'm suggestiing that people now understand that anything they post or do can later be brought up against you in retaliation so they are posting as AC instead of having it associated with an online identity.
I have said that several times now. I am not sure why you are trying to justify peoples intolorance and ram it in qhile ignoring the point made. I could care less if you think it is fine to retaliate against someone for their political expressions or wvwn if it was or wasn't justified. The point is that it happened and more people are posting AC so it doesn't happen to them.
They knew about it for the previous 4 years and didn't care enough to say anything then all the sudden it was important and used against him. It has never been shown that his beliefs were ever pushed onto anyone in his professional capacity or that anyone had ever been discriminated against due to his one time belief.
It doesn't matter how you justify the intolorant behavior, it still validates my point.
You are trying to hide the forest in the trees.
None of that matters to my point. Something that was acceptable 8 or so years ago became unacceptable and was used to retaliate against him. Some people will not want any online persona associated with anything that can be used like that in the future.
As for the specifics, yes, the intolorance of some drove him away when they retaliated against someone for political speech that was the same as the majority of voters who made it state law. But the point wasn't about Mozilla being evil, it was about hoe something you do or say today can and will be used by extreamists in the future against you
The fourth (warrant) doesn't really matter (and yes they did have one). This guy is claiming 1st amendment US constitution and article 1 section 4 of the Illinois state constitution here.
He is saying he has a right to mock politicians. Even if they filed charges, his first amendment claims simply becomes a defense but it appears that the only charges they could file is if the fake account attempted to impersonate a government official in their official capacity. The problem here is that the comments or tweets were about smoking crack, eating pussy, and crap like that in response to the mayor's actions. For the law in question to apply, he would have had to say something like the mayors office is supporting the Gay KKK rally or something of the sorts that would make the public believe government was taking an action or position on something. But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).
lol.. IF that is what it takes to make your pathetic life worth living another day, so be it.