Well, fortunately for us, if the US government did attempt something like that, there would be an open record of it in a court in which they filed the complaint.
Well, that is unless there is some sort of terrorism secrecy ordeal going on. But then, the CC companies could contest that in court as their defense would greatly benefit from exposure. I think if an actual threat was ever made, it would either be public record shortly after through normal channels or some bigmouth intern for either side would have already blabbed it. And they probably would have blabbed it on wikileaks to boot. Especially when a lot of people already suspect the government being behind it.
In other words, I would think we would have more then speculation to that effect if it happened/happens. But, with various incarnations of the patriot act and the secrecy allowed, it would probably be the intern we would have to rely on.
I mean if 100 people on every site this news is spammed to grabs a name they havn't already grabbed, all that will be left for the idiots wanting to slander/hit their name will be either geekspeek making them look less authoritative and diminishing the power of it or so ridiculously long that you need to take a second commercial spot out just to advertise the website.
Either way, it has the potential to increase the costs of making a site to slam them, and it has the potential to lessen the credibility of what it said who knows it's said.
Actually, I meant citing:). I'm surprised that accusations are enough to make someone liable under RICO.
It's not that they become liable under the accusations, it's that if the accusations went to charges, they could become liable. It's the CC companies looking to cover their asses so they don't become liable.
I'm also wondering what credible accusations have been made against wikileaks; so far Assange has been accused of breaking the law but Wikileaks has not, at least not by someone credible.
That's the thing with RICO.. It goes after the organizations not just the criminals within. But the accusations that most likely got the CC company's attention was law makers calling for it's head citing the espionage act and Manning's stealing in the first place. The troubling thing here is that even if it's determined that the espionage act doesn't cover a foreign persons in foreign lands, it makes it illegal for anyone within it's jurisdiction to possess the leaked information for any purpose unless they are authorized somehow to do so. This means that potentially, even if the espionage act isn't enforceable, rico statutes might be because each time a US citizens access the information, they are supposedly committing a crime. And if Wikileaks is showing a pattern of enabling a US citizen to commit a crime then RICO jumps in.
But as far as I know, the RICO is just a theory which makes much more sense for the actions then the US government pressuring them and they are keeping secrete about it.
Speculating that the CC companies are speculating that they might at least have some legal issues due to RICO doesn't seem that much more credible to me than the government going after Wikileaks in any way they can after they've made it abundantly clear that they don't like what Wikileaks did/does. I really can't see why one would be certain of the reasons for what the CC companies did.
Well, here is the problem. It's all speculation. I can show where a law is that would create legal problems for the CC companies, you can show where the US government said they didn't like wikileaks. But in your US government theory, it validates the liability theory because US government officials and politicians have claimed it was criminal.
So if we dissect this a little, the government is behind it theory actually relies on the same information that would allow existing laws to apply. I don't think anyone is disputing that the government has said all sorts of things including calling the actions criminal. So it wouldn't be necessary for the government to shut off their credit card processing capabilities when a law already on the books designed to stop organized crime from being profitable or shielded from prosecution, actually encourages the CC companies to sever ties with them before they end up becoming liable and legally entangled with wikileaks.
Now, you seem like an inteligent person, I don't means to state otherwise. But if you were head of a company, some stuff happened that made it look like your company was involved with some people who were in trouble with the US government for some pretty serious violations of laws, And you lawyers told you that your company can be included in the charges because of your associations with those people aided their activities, would you wait for the US government to ask you to stop, or would you keep your fiduciary duty and sever liability by not doing business with them? I mean lets keep this somewhat realistic too. The amount of business done with them is minuscule compared to the rest of your operations. And if your company gets indicted, you will have to post a performance bond of several times the total company assets and profit expected to be made while at trial or risk having all your assets frozen.
I mean seriously, there is simply too much to risk by ignoring the potential liability.
You know, it's funny. I specifically asked you for the certificate's serial number stating that it would solve the issue altogether once and for all. You claim there is a picture with it somewhere but failed to produce one with a readable number. You have failed to even produce the number from your own collection of proof.
You are now claiming something else without proof of any kind other then your willingness to be a fucking idiot. I'm not a racist because you can't find the proof needed. You know, the proof that is simply releasing the birth certificate he has without obscuring the damn serial number to it can be verified as valid. It's a simply thing anyone can do. Yet you can't find it, you have failed miserably in posting the serial number that would validate the birth certificate, and when you ran out of idea on how to redirect the thread, you started calling others racist. You are pathetic. No wonder your dad ran away from home and your mom beat you.
I told you what my fucking argument was several damn times and you still can't get it right. It's no wonder why you think you are getting somewhere when you are not. Like I said to the other idiot thinking it was you, your nothing but a useful idiot doing nothing but trolling. Go troll somewhere else.
Damn dude, I thought you were that jackass idiot that I was replying to. Didn't realize the user had changed. Some of that idiot and crap wasn't directed at you.
No, you're a racist because if he was a white guy born in Hawaii, nobody would be questioning it. If his father was a white British guy, then it's all good, right? Of course you'll say it wouldn't be, now, but we all know that's not the truth . . .
Maybe you are right. Because when they did ask the white guy, when they did ask the guy who has European heritage, that guy simply supplied all the materials requested to show he was a qualified citizen. Or are you forgetting that the democrats first used the citizenship tactic in an attempt to disqualify McCain from running and when the questions were examines, the rest of the country asked Obama to clarify the same shit.
Perhaps you right, it is racists of the white guy to show he was a natural born citizen according to the law and expect the black guy to do the exact same thing. Especially when it's so damn easy to do if what he says is true.
This begs the question, why should he have to provide more information? Did McCain? George W? Clinton? George H.W.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Were they asked repeatedly and exhaustively to prove to every citizen in this country that they are, in fact, naturally born citizens?
McCain showed verifiable proof the instance it was asked. HE even opened his fathers service record to public examination without hesitation. As far as Reagan, Carter, and the rest, they never claimed to have lived in another country at birth, they never wrote books which detail a timeline that conflicts his mother's physical locations with his supposed birth place. Are you really that daft that you have not looked into any of the claims, and are blindly saying that everyone is a racist because you do not know the situation? I mean that would most likely make you the racists if your entire premise of other being a racist exist on your purposeful ignorance.
And yes, As I have said before and presumably have to say again for the unintelligent like you, I don't think there is a problem with his citizenship, I think he's purposely keeping this conspiracy alive though. I used to be confused to why he would want to do this. Now I know, it's because idiots like you become useful tools going around calling these birthers racists when the fact of the matter resorts to you being ignorant.
You're saying he has to provide more information because his dad was a black foreigner? That makes you racist.
I'm saying he hasn't provided the right information at all because he simply hasn't. He has only released information that can not be independently verified by anyone outside a close circle of his that appears to have a benefit to him being president. That doesn't make me a racists, but it does show how fucking stupid you are because you still can't grasp the simple language being presented to you.
You are in essence saying "I don't understand, I don't have a counter argument that makes any sense, you must be a racists".
Also, to follow the conspiracy, his mother would have had to give birth to him in Kenya, then real quick smuggle him into Hawaii, but why would she do that? He was already a US citizen because his mother was born and raised in the US. So why fake the "naturally born" part? Believing they did all this over 40 years ago so that the son of a black man and white woman could run for president? This just a few years after black people didn't have to ride in the back of the bus anymore, and could share drinking fountains with white folk? That's far more of a stretch than anything else.
Follow what conspiracy? My conspiracy that he wants people to question his birth in order to rally useful idiots like you to his defense? All I said is that he hasn't provided the complete document so it could be verified and he was doing that on purpose. Anything else you bring up is completely separate from me. Go find someone else to answer tha
It's simple. The world is changing and the unions aren't changing with it. They have succeeded in getting most of everything they started for built into laws making workplaces safe. They got a minimum wage for workers.
I think the problem is that you see unions as a way to force things to be equal. They are not. If you want more, you work harder or more or differently so that is achieve somewhere or somehow. Demanding more without adding more wealth and value does nothing but erode and enable the very problems you mentioned.
Unions are seen as greedy entities that cause what you mentioned. I have only once work somewhere where I didn't think I was being justly compensated for my efforts. My solution wasn't to pound some sense into the employer, it was to move on to another job. That employer ended up going out of business and learned a lesson most companies already know, if you pay shit and only hirer people willing to receive that pay, you will be on the bottom of the field no matter how much you think you are saving. If I'm being compensated well, I don't care how much money the boss is making or the company makes as long as it's enough to keep me employed. You will find yourself a lot better served to be more concerned with what you are making then what the rich are making.
So unions are governments now with legal power over a person?
I know that's not what you meant, but damn if it doesn't point in that direction. I mean if you have to pay taxes in order to earn a living and stay out of jail, and you have to pay union dues in some places to earn a living and be subject to their rules, we aren't far from the problem or the same situation.
Usually, people who support unions are brainwashed idiots that don't believe they can achieve more on their own. The people who can achieve more on their own generally already do and don't look at unions as being responsible for their success. At one time, unions were needed to create a safe work environment and receive a living wage. That need has largely been supplanted by laws making the Unions an unneeded thorn in the side to most people. In practice, Unions tend to work more towards punishing employers now then helping employees. This causes jobs to leave and a lot of other crap.
No.. At will employment does not in any way negate any laws on the books protecting workers from sexual harassment, discrimination, or any other law designed to protect employees. All an at will law could do is allow the company behind this to create further liability by their actions.
And seeing how this wasn't a company policy, the same could have happened in a union workplace where a union member because perverse or corrupted and caused the set of events to unfold.
You are a fool if you think there would have been any magic protection that didn't already exist. This happened because people were ignorant, abused their authority, and was made possible by someone pretending to have more authority then anyone at the restaurant, and no one spoke up in their defense. Having a union present doesn't stop that from happening at all. The shop steward could be in on it or just as clueless and ignorant as the other participants, or completely in on it. Being an at will employment state has absolutely no bearing on that at all.
Wikileaks hasn't broken any laws so siting RICO seems quite dubious.
I'm assuming you meant sicking instead of sitting so if my reply is misplaced, let me know.
You don't know that wikileaks hasn't broken any laws. The accusations are there, there has been no formal charges, and accusations if believable are enough for companies to be charged under some of the rico statues for actions after they reasonable knew what their business activities were aiding. And no, it's not the government sicking rico on them, it's the companies protecting their own asses from sanction or prosecution under laws that already existed.
In the case of enabling criminal activity, I do see some merit but I'm going to take a guess that you aren't directly quoting the law because that statement would apply to any publisher, no matter the medium they use.
Actually, they have been used against publishers in the past. There was a case against the NY times I believe in which the government found it couldn't stop the distribution of materials but was left open to other prosecution for doing so. The state never went after them on that matter again so it's still somewhat undecided to what extent they could be liable.
Anyways, there is plenty of reason to believe this is a cover your own ass move by major CC companies and little to no evidence outside of speculation that any government was behind the decision outside of laws already on the books.
Perhaps you are simply not capable of grasping the advance linguistics form I am using. I will dumb it down for you. Those things do not say what you think they say. Those things you are spouting as proof is nothing that couldn't be replicated by the average high school kid with a computer and printer.
Why is that? Because things like the serial numbers that can validate them have been purposely obscured. Even the one in which you claim wasn't purposely redacted, it's unintelligible.
Now this make me no more a racist then you a genius. What it does do is show how fucking loyal you are to someone who is purposely keeping a conspiracy alive. This may be a calculated plan of yours, or judging from your comments, a result of your utter stupidity. In the one, only you would know, in the other, you probably aren't smart enough to know, but everyone else can see it shinning like the sun. But in the end, you were told that a valid serial number to the documents presented would put a final rest to this forever, you have failed to present one, you have even ignored that claiming the documents that cannot be verified is proof enough when it isn't. and instead of showing the requested information that would need little more then a posting of the document with an intelligible serial number, you resort to calling people racists because of your failures.
I'll certainly have to agree with you that really bad things happen when industry gets too far into bed with government, and I also agree that that is where we are today. I believe we differ in that when we get into this situation, you tend to trust industry over government, and I tend the opposite direction.
I go with industry over government because that's where I have the most power. I can simply use another business and if enough people believe the same as I do, the business will be forced to either close or change it's ways. In government, when industry owns them, it's a lot more difficult to effect change. For one, getting everyone to agree what change needs to be made is something in and of itself that would stop it from happening. The other problem is that politicians spend about 1/3 of their time chasing money for their next election, they are already predisposition to jump on the corporate bandwagon.
As for blaming government for monopolies and duopolies, there is some of that. But I think that the natural desire of every company is toward monopoly, and that somehow needs to be countered. Then we're back to the problem of government-business tying, because too often business influence the legislation that is meant to foster competition, turning that legislation into the barrier to entry that you mention.
Perhaps the real common point for both of us is that we'd like to see some way to eliminate the ties between government and business. If the marketplace could be kept free, competitive, and responsive, I'd certainly be happy with a lot less regulation. But we're in the situation we're in, and at this point I don't think that reducing regulation will magically fix things. One thing that might help fix things is new disruptive industries that can sweep away the old. The challenge is, as with regulation, not making things worse. The problem is that current industries understand the meaning of "disruptive" and are doing everything they can to put a lid on it.
I think we are in general agreement here if not for the same reasons. Corruption of regulation is no different then the bad regulation in my book. I'm not against regulation, just against bad regulation that stops competittion and favors the existing entities. I'm all for effective regulation that doesn't go beyond what is necessary to cure the problem once it's known to be a problem and is enforced.
I guess the reason you are thinking disrupted technologies would be the most beneficial is because you see a huge barrier to entry too. Whether you want to admit it or not, you don't see how anyone can start a business and compete with Anthem national or one of the large insurance providers. And it's because government have used regulation to favor them, people have abused the government driving up costs, and the government in general has been too lethargic to answer these problems in any efficient or practical way.
There used to be a joke. It wasn't particularly funny but it expressed a sentiment that a lot of people held about the government at one point in time. It had to do something about all the unions asking everyone to strike in protest with the state workers of all 50 states. Someone would ask why, why are the state employees striking for. The answer was, because the Japanese developed a kickstand for the shovel and half the road crew was set to be laid off. Someone would then chime in that they were raising taxes too. You see, ordinary people could buy the kickstand for $2 a pop but the government needs $2k a pop for them because they are painted highway orange.
You cannot really up and change the government you are doing business with. But you can change who your insurance provider is, who your cell phone provider is and so on. You can choose to goto walmart or the local farmers market. You have so much more freedom in so much more things.
The reason most tea party people argue the civil rights act was unconstitutional wasn't because it made certain things illegal. It's because it provided special privileges for some based on race/creed. Namely the affirmative action parts.
Now it was argued that it was necessary to reverse years of suppression due to racism and that might be a valid point. But, being a valid point still doesn't make it constitutional. The part of the constitution that gave congress the power to make the civil rights act is the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th amendment. If the law gave special privileges such as preferential treatment to one set of citizens, it wasn't constitutional. This is the effect of affirmative action in practice.
No, they can be guilty, they just haven't been found guilty in court yet- they aren't convicted. The lack of charges does nothing to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone.
I'm still waiting for you to type that so readable serial number into the post box here. When you can do that accurately, I will admit that I am wrong. But seeing how you can't, how you haven't, and how you resort to calling me racist simply because I disagree with you, it appears that you have been proven wrong.
I'm starting to think it's funny. You come on here claiming everything I said was wrong, fail to provide evidence of it outside a discounted photo and the statements of some people you seem to trust, and yet instead of providing the verifyable serial number, you resort back to making claims of racism. Well, I guess your argument has already gotten too much consideration. There is a name for people like you, it's generally pronounces fucking retard but sometimes idiot is used to. Oh well, best wished to you in everything you do. It seems like you will need all the help you can get.
So, it doesn't mean he's not in violation of American law.
Nigerian scammers aren't subject to American laws either but we freeze their assets in US owned companies when caught. The same goes with drug lords and communist dictators.
Nothing new here. The your law can't touch me argument fails.
Governments are not strong-arming credit card companies. It's been illegal since the rico laws were passed in the 1960's to do business with organizations knowing the funding was going to support, enable, or further criminal activity. As soon as the CC companies would reasonably believe that acts by wikileaks were criminal in nature, they were subject to prosecution under those laws which is why they stopped.
As for your comment about OSS, well, as I said, the laws have been around longer then OSS has, your fear isn't anything that just happened outside of you just now noticing it.
Yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with you is automagically racists.
It sounds like you are getting really upset that you can't prove what you think you are proving. Perhaps a little psych 101 here, but I think it's a transference of your wavering beliefs in Obama when presented with very real questions that challenge your own presumed theories. I'm getting the impression that you don't really think I'm a racist, you just find my ideas intriguing and instead of exploring them to a comfortable end, you are rejecting it ad hominem because it seems to undermine your entire base for your principles.
Well, no. Sometimes destroying evidence can be bigger evidence in convincing a jury that you are guilty. But it's a crime to destroy evidence in the least to begin with.
If they were going to destroy it, the time to do so would be before any mention of a case or investigation at all. Once there is a reasonable belief that there is potential litigation and the item might be evidence, you have to preserve it to the best of your ability. If they didn't, they could be busted with destroying evidence. And this destruction of evidence problem isn't really limited to just government actions. If I tell you I am going to sue you, it's possible that you can be charged and convicted of destroying evidence even though I haven't filed court papers yet.
Of course the laws vary from state to state and me suing you would likely be a state law. But the problem is even compounded by SOX, HIPPA, and other regulations if you are covered by them. In those situation, the law specifically sets out to name things you have to preserve and take steps to preserve else you might lose the case by default or be punished for not preserving the evidence even if a crime wasn't shown to have happened.
It's like one of those lying to investigators things when no crime was shown to have been committed. Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart both got busted for giving false statements where no crime happened and no one was actually charged in connection to the original investigation matters.
You see, once the investigation is initiated, the government has a right to pursue any evidence that may pertain to the case- even if it implicates other crimes or aids the conviction of the crime. Normally, how this would work is the government would get a judge to issue a warrant to produce the item or information if asking for it doesn't work.
The problem here is that there is no clear evidence of a crime or that the government has jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into it. But why it's doing an investigation, then the government can try to get a warrant and google can try to get the court to stop the government from investigating.
But if the investigation is legal and the government entity does have the competent authority to do the investigation, then the government has a right to the data if it can be connected to the investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, fortunately for us, if the US government did attempt something like that, there would be an open record of it in a court in which they filed the complaint.
Well, that is unless there is some sort of terrorism secrecy ordeal going on. But then, the CC companies could contest that in court as their defense would greatly benefit from exposure. I think if an actual threat was ever made, it would either be public record shortly after through normal channels or some bigmouth intern for either side would have already blabbed it. And they probably would have blabbed it on wikileaks to boot. Especially when a lot of people already suspect the government being behind it.
In other words, I would think we would have more then speculation to that effect if it happened/happens. But, with various incarnations of the patriot act and the secrecy allowed, it would probably be the intern we would have to rely on.
Did you ever think maybe that was the point?
I mean if 100 people on every site this news is spammed to grabs a name they havn't already grabbed, all that will be left for the idiots wanting to slander/hit their name will be either geekspeek making them look less authoritative and diminishing the power of it or so ridiculously long that you need to take a second commercial spot out just to advertise the website.
Either way, it has the potential to increase the costs of making a site to slam them, and it has the potential to lessen the credibility of what it said who knows it's said.
It's not that they become liable under the accusations, it's that if the accusations went to charges, they could become liable. It's the CC companies looking to cover their asses so they don't become liable.
That's the thing with RICO.. It goes after the organizations not just the criminals within. But the accusations that most likely got the CC company's attention was law makers calling for it's head citing the espionage act and Manning's stealing in the first place. The troubling thing here is that even if it's determined that the espionage act doesn't cover a foreign persons in foreign lands, it makes it illegal for anyone within it's jurisdiction to possess the leaked information for any purpose unless they are authorized somehow to do so. This means that potentially, even if the espionage act isn't enforceable, rico statutes might be because each time a US citizens access the information, they are supposedly committing a crime. And if Wikileaks is showing a pattern of enabling a US citizen to commit a crime then RICO jumps in.
But as far as I know, the RICO is just a theory which makes much more sense for the actions then the US government pressuring them and they are keeping secrete about it.
Well, here is the problem. It's all speculation. I can show where a law is that would create legal problems for the CC companies, you can show where the US government said they didn't like wikileaks. But in your US government theory, it validates the liability theory because US government officials and politicians have claimed it was criminal.
So if we dissect this a little, the government is behind it theory actually relies on the same information that would allow existing laws to apply. I don't think anyone is disputing that the government has said all sorts of things including calling the actions criminal. So it wouldn't be necessary for the government to shut off their credit card processing capabilities when a law already on the books designed to stop organized crime from being profitable or shielded from prosecution, actually encourages the CC companies to sever ties with them before they end up becoming liable and legally entangled with wikileaks.
Now, you seem like an inteligent person, I don't means to state otherwise. But if you were head of a company, some stuff happened that made it look like your company was involved with some people who were in trouble with the US government for some pretty serious violations of laws, And you lawyers told you that your company can be included in the charges because of your associations with those people aided their activities, would you wait for the US government to ask you to stop, or would you keep your fiduciary duty and sever liability by not doing business with them? I mean lets keep this somewhat realistic too. The amount of business done with them is minuscule compared to the rest of your operations. And if your company gets indicted, you will have to post a performance bond of several times the total company assets and profit expected to be made while at trial or risk having all your assets frozen.
I mean seriously, there is simply too much to risk by ignoring the potential liability.
You know, it's funny. I specifically asked you for the certificate's serial number stating that it would solve the issue altogether once and for all. You claim there is a picture with it somewhere but failed to produce one with a readable number. You have failed to even produce the number from your own collection of proof.
You are now claiming something else without proof of any kind other then your willingness to be a fucking idiot. I'm not a racist because you can't find the proof needed. You know, the proof that is simply releasing the birth certificate he has without obscuring the damn serial number to it can be verified as valid. It's a simply thing anyone can do. Yet you can't find it, you have failed miserably in posting the serial number that would validate the birth certificate, and when you ran out of idea on how to redirect the thread, you started calling others racist. You are pathetic. No wonder your dad ran away from home and your mom beat you.
I told you what my fucking argument was several damn times and you still can't get it right. It's no wonder why you think you are getting somewhere when you are not. Like I said to the other idiot thinking it was you, your nothing but a useful idiot doing nothing but trolling. Go troll somewhere else.
Damn dude, I thought you were that jackass idiot that I was replying to. Didn't realize the user had changed. Some of that idiot and crap wasn't directed at you.
Me thinks the idiot doesn't know what it thinks. Like I said, provide the number if you can.
Maybe you are right. Because when they did ask the white guy, when they did ask the guy who has European heritage, that guy simply supplied all the materials requested to show he was a qualified citizen. Or are you forgetting that the democrats first used the citizenship tactic in an attempt to disqualify McCain from running and when the questions were examines, the rest of the country asked Obama to clarify the same shit.
Perhaps you right, it is racists of the white guy to show he was a natural born citizen according to the law and expect the black guy to do the exact same thing. Especially when it's so damn easy to do if what he says is true.
McCain showed verifiable proof the instance it was asked. HE even opened his fathers service record to public examination without hesitation. As far as Reagan, Carter, and the rest, they never claimed to have lived in another country at birth, they never wrote books which detail a timeline that conflicts his mother's physical locations with his supposed birth place. Are you really that daft that you have not looked into any of the claims, and are blindly saying that everyone is a racist because you do not know the situation? I mean that would most likely make you the racists if your entire premise of other being a racist exist on your purposeful ignorance.
And yes, As I have said before and presumably have to say again for the unintelligent like you, I don't think there is a problem with his citizenship, I think he's purposely keeping this conspiracy alive though. I used to be confused to why he would want to do this. Now I know, it's because idiots like you become useful tools going around calling these birthers racists when the fact of the matter resorts to you being ignorant.
I'm saying he hasn't provided the right information at all because he simply hasn't. He has only released information that can not be independently verified by anyone outside a close circle of his that appears to have a benefit to him being president. That doesn't make me a racists, but it does show how fucking stupid you are because you still can't grasp the simple language being presented to you.
You are in essence saying "I don't understand, I don't have a counter argument that makes any sense, you must be a racists".
Follow what conspiracy? My conspiracy that he wants people to question his birth in order to rally useful idiots like you to his defense? All I said is that he hasn't provided the complete document so it could be verified and he was doing that on purpose. Anything else you bring up is completely separate from me. Go find someone else to answer tha
It's simple. The world is changing and the unions aren't changing with it. They have succeeded in getting most of everything they started for built into laws making workplaces safe. They got a minimum wage for workers.
I think the problem is that you see unions as a way to force things to be equal. They are not. If you want more, you work harder or more or differently so that is achieve somewhere or somehow. Demanding more without adding more wealth and value does nothing but erode and enable the very problems you mentioned.
Unions are seen as greedy entities that cause what you mentioned. I have only once work somewhere where I didn't think I was being justly compensated for my efforts. My solution wasn't to pound some sense into the employer, it was to move on to another job. That employer ended up going out of business and learned a lesson most companies already know, if you pay shit and only hirer people willing to receive that pay, you will be on the bottom of the field no matter how much you think you are saving. If I'm being compensated well, I don't care how much money the boss is making or the company makes as long as it's enough to keep me employed. You will find yourself a lot better served to be more concerned with what you are making then what the rich are making.
So unions are governments now with legal power over a person?
I know that's not what you meant, but damn if it doesn't point in that direction. I mean if you have to pay taxes in order to earn a living and stay out of jail, and you have to pay union dues in some places to earn a living and be subject to their rules, we aren't far from the problem or the same situation.
Usually, people who support unions are brainwashed idiots that don't believe they can achieve more on their own. The people who can achieve more on their own generally already do and don't look at unions as being responsible for their success. At one time, unions were needed to create a safe work environment and receive a living wage. That need has largely been supplanted by laws making the Unions an unneeded thorn in the side to most people. In practice, Unions tend to work more towards punishing employers now then helping employees. This causes jobs to leave and a lot of other crap.
No.. At will employment does not in any way negate any laws on the books protecting workers from sexual harassment, discrimination, or any other law designed to protect employees. All an at will law could do is allow the company behind this to create further liability by their actions.
And seeing how this wasn't a company policy, the same could have happened in a union workplace where a union member because perverse or corrupted and caused the set of events to unfold.
You are a fool if you think there would have been any magic protection that didn't already exist. This happened because people were ignorant, abused their authority, and was made possible by someone pretending to have more authority then anyone at the restaurant, and no one spoke up in their defense. Having a union present doesn't stop that from happening at all. The shop steward could be in on it or just as clueless and ignorant as the other participants, or completely in on it. Being an at will employment state has absolutely no bearing on that at all.
I'm assuming you meant sicking instead of sitting so if my reply is misplaced, let me know.
You don't know that wikileaks hasn't broken any laws. The accusations are there, there has been no formal charges, and accusations if believable are enough for companies to be charged under some of the rico statues for actions after they reasonable knew what their business activities were aiding. And no, it's not the government sicking rico on them, it's the companies protecting their own asses from sanction or prosecution under laws that already existed.
Actually, they have been used against publishers in the past. There was a case against the NY times I believe in which the government found it couldn't stop the distribution of materials but was left open to other prosecution for doing so. The state never went after them on that matter again so it's still somewhat undecided to what extent they could be liable.
Anyways, there is plenty of reason to believe this is a cover your own ass move by major CC companies and little to no evidence outside of speculation that any government was behind the decision outside of laws already on the books.
Perhaps you are simply not capable of grasping the advance linguistics form I am using. I will dumb it down for you. Those things do not say what you think they say. Those things you are spouting as proof is nothing that couldn't be replicated by the average high school kid with a computer and printer.
Why is that? Because things like the serial numbers that can validate them have been purposely obscured. Even the one in which you claim wasn't purposely redacted, it's unintelligible.
Now this make me no more a racist then you a genius. What it does do is show how fucking loyal you are to someone who is purposely keeping a conspiracy alive. This may be a calculated plan of yours, or judging from your comments, a result of your utter stupidity. In the one, only you would know, in the other, you probably aren't smart enough to know, but everyone else can see it shinning like the sun. But in the end, you were told that a valid serial number to the documents presented would put a final rest to this forever, you have failed to present one, you have even ignored that claiming the documents that cannot be verified is proof enough when it isn't. and instead of showing the requested information that would need little more then a posting of the document with an intelligible serial number, you resort to calling people racists because of your failures.
I'm not sure who they are, but if you search for Wikileaks was paid off by Israel, you will find a lot of discussion on this very topic.
I go with industry over government because that's where I have the most power. I can simply use another business and if enough people believe the same as I do, the business will be forced to either close or change it's ways. In government, when industry owns them, it's a lot more difficult to effect change. For one, getting everyone to agree what change needs to be made is something in and of itself that would stop it from happening. The other problem is that politicians spend about 1/3 of their time chasing money for their next election, they are already predisposition to jump on the corporate bandwagon.
I think we are in general agreement here if not for the same reasons. Corruption of regulation is no different then the bad regulation in my book. I'm not against regulation, just against bad regulation that stops competittion and favors the existing entities. I'm all for effective regulation that doesn't go beyond what is necessary to cure the problem once it's known to be a problem and is enforced.
I guess the reason you are thinking disrupted technologies would be the most beneficial is because you see a huge barrier to entry too. Whether you want to admit it or not, you don't see how anyone can start a business and compete with Anthem national or one of the large insurance providers. And it's because government have used regulation to favor them, people have abused the government driving up costs, and the government in general has been too lethargic to answer these problems in any efficient or practical way.
There used to be a joke. It wasn't particularly funny but it expressed a sentiment that a lot of people held about the government at one point in time. It had to do something about all the unions asking everyone to strike in protest with the state workers of all 50 states. Someone would ask why, why are the state employees striking for. The answer was, because the Japanese developed a kickstand for the shovel and half the road crew was set to be laid off. Someone would then chime in that they were raising taxes too. You see, ordinary people could buy the kickstand for $2 a pop but the government needs $2k a pop for them because they are painted highway orange.
You cannot really up and change the government you are doing business with. But you can change who your insurance provider is, who your cell phone provider is and so on. You can choose to goto walmart or the local farmers market. You have so much more freedom in so much more things.
The reason most tea party people argue the civil rights act was unconstitutional wasn't because it made certain things illegal. It's because it provided special privileges for some based on race/creed. Namely the affirmative action parts.
Now it was argued that it was necessary to reverse years of suppression due to racism and that might be a valid point. But, being a valid point still doesn't make it constitutional. The part of the constitution that gave congress the power to make the civil rights act is the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th amendment. If the law gave special privileges such as preferential treatment to one set of citizens, it wasn't constitutional. This is the effect of affirmative action in practice.
No, they can be guilty, they just haven't been found guilty in court yet- they aren't convicted. The lack of charges does nothing to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone.
You havn't showed anything that isn't already known. The only thing you are doing is assigning values it cannot support. Yes, the problem is with you.
I'm still waiting for you to type that so readable serial number into the post box here. When you can do that accurately, I will admit that I am wrong. But seeing how you can't, how you haven't, and how you resort to calling me racist simply because I disagree with you, it appears that you have been proven wrong.
I'm starting to think it's funny. You come on here claiming everything I said was wrong, fail to provide evidence of it outside a discounted photo and the statements of some people you seem to trust, and yet instead of providing the verifyable serial number, you resort back to making claims of racism. Well, I guess your argument has already gotten too much consideration. There is a name for people like you, it's generally pronounces fucking retard but sometimes idiot is used to. Oh well, best wished to you in everything you do. It seems like you will need all the help you can get.
So, it doesn't mean he's not in violation of American law.
Nigerian scammers aren't subject to American laws either but we freeze their assets in US owned companies when caught. The same goes with drug lords and communist dictators.
Nothing new here. The your law can't touch me argument fails.
Governments are not strong-arming credit card companies. It's been illegal since the rico laws were passed in the 1960's to do business with organizations knowing the funding was going to support, enable, or further criminal activity. As soon as the CC companies would reasonably believe that acts by wikileaks were criminal in nature, they were subject to prosecution under those laws which is why they stopped.
As for your comment about OSS, well, as I said, the laws have been around longer then OSS has, your fear isn't anything that just happened outside of you just now noticing it.
Yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with you is automagically racists.
It sounds like you are getting really upset that you can't prove what you think you are proving. Perhaps a little psych 101 here, but I think it's a transference of your wavering beliefs in Obama when presented with very real questions that challenge your own presumed theories. I'm getting the impression that you don't really think I'm a racist, you just find my ideas intriguing and instead of exploring them to a comfortable end, you are rejecting it ad hominem because it seems to undermine your entire base for your principles.
The problem isn't that the information has been around, it's that it doesn't show what you think it does.
Yes, that's right, the problem is with you, not people wanting to know for sure.
Well, no. Sometimes destroying evidence can be bigger evidence in convincing a jury that you are guilty. But it's a crime to destroy evidence in the least to begin with.
If they were going to destroy it, the time to do so would be before any mention of a case or investigation at all. Once there is a reasonable belief that there is potential litigation and the item might be evidence, you have to preserve it to the best of your ability. If they didn't, they could be busted with destroying evidence. And this destruction of evidence problem isn't really limited to just government actions. If I tell you I am going to sue you, it's possible that you can be charged and convicted of destroying evidence even though I haven't filed court papers yet.
Of course the laws vary from state to state and me suing you would likely be a state law. But the problem is even compounded by SOX, HIPPA, and other regulations if you are covered by them. In those situation, the law specifically sets out to name things you have to preserve and take steps to preserve else you might lose the case by default or be punished for not preserving the evidence even if a crime wasn't shown to have happened.
It's like one of those lying to investigators things when no crime was shown to have been committed. Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart both got busted for giving false statements where no crime happened and no one was actually charged in connection to the original investigation matters.
Well, no. It rarely works out that way.
You see, once the investigation is initiated, the government has a right to pursue any evidence that may pertain to the case- even if it implicates other crimes or aids the conviction of the crime. Normally, how this would work is the government would get a judge to issue a warrant to produce the item or information if asking for it doesn't work.
The problem here is that there is no clear evidence of a crime or that the government has jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into it. But why it's doing an investigation, then the government can try to get a warrant and google can try to get the court to stop the government from investigating.
But if the investigation is legal and the government entity does have the competent authority to do the investigation, then the government has a right to the data if it can be connected to the investigation.