Well, answer this then. What would make it any different if they didn't like the sports jersey he was wearing or if he accidentally said something that offended someone? This is not unheard of. Then fact that he is gay means nothing in those motivations. Or are you suggesting that anyone who is gay or black or female automagically should have more protections somehow?
So you would say there is a need for more severe punishment if someone had plotted and executed his wife because she was black by ancestry instead of because he wanted to sleep with another woman ? Well, how about if he plotted and killed his wife because she was white and he wanted to be with a black or Latino woman because he felt that it was the only type of woman that could satisfy him?
I mean common, plotting and killing a person is a capitol crime in most areas. Those that are not seem to have some moratorium on the death penalty. So what are we really going to do, give him two life sentences in the pokey or put him through the gas chamber twice?
What traditionally matters is if the crime was accidental, the result of recklessness, negligence, of intentional actions. Almost everyone who stikes another person does so out of hate of some sort at the time of the strike. Is being on record as saying nigger or honky or chink or something like that a few days earlier justification to double the punishment? How about if it was just the repeating of a racist joke that actually was funny?
I find it hard to believe that you can't legitimately tell the differences between states of mind and how racially motivated crimes are already a deliberate state of mind.
So, now that I have that out of my system... ah, I see. I thought you were trying to blame modern democrats for racism and eugenic practices and claiming current abortion clinics existed for the sole purpose of "keeping minorities in their place".
Yea, you got it right now. I wasn't blaming modern democrats, I was saying that you can't connect them to it because of their modern support of the institutions that were born out of a different time but serve a different purpose today. And similarly, I see it the same as with the tea party and libertarian movements- Just because something might have been true yesterday doesn't mean it's true today. Attempting to make that connection out of an association in the past ridiculous without evidence of the existence today.
first) Saying they're no longer involved and therefore the tea party is a separate organization is like saying that if I set off a rube goldberg machine I'm not responsible for the end result. Is it still a grassroots movement if various powerful entities tilled the lawn, planted the seeds and applied a healthy dose of fertilizer?
Ok well lets look at this in reality. If you started the rube then left, and I came over and stopped it midstream, altered a few things and then let it continue, would you still think you are responsible for it's end results? I would think not because it's not the same machine that you started with.
But lets take your lawn situation a little further. Suppose you did till the lawn, planted the seeds and applied a healthy dose of fertilizer, then moved on to a building across town. It that lawn still yours? Is it still there for your benefit? Are you still taking care of it and feeding it and maintaining it? The answer to that is maybe. You could have sold it out to someone else and now it's theirs. You could have abandoned it altogether and the neighbor took care of it, or you could still own it and enjoy it every once in a while (or get permission from the new owner to do the same). The point is, that there is no indication that the infamous billionaire Koch brothers are anywhere near the movements today. Just because they were in control at one time, does not in any way make it so today when their presence is absent. It could be true, but we need evidence outside of some 1970's connection just like we need evidence that planned parenthood is still operating with the intent of purifying the gene pool.
Second) Just because you can't see their influence doesn't mean it isn't there.
I agree, Just because you can't see their influence doesn't mean it isn't there. However, if I was going to make the claim that it was there, I would have to support that allegation with something over an association more then thirty years ago. If that is all we needed to do, then it would be accurate to claim that the democrats are racist socialist/communists because of something almost 100 years ago.
The tea party and libertarian movements do benefit a lot of very powerful people and just because they're good at astroturfing doesn't make the grass real. It just means they're good at what they do.
Sure, but if you hold a position and someone you don't like favors your position, is that grounds to abandon your position altogether? I mean common, we are not in third grade anymore (well, most of us who are voting anyways). I mean (in a third grade like position), if you had the option of getting a piece of candy but everyone in the class would get one also, should I suspect your motives and dislike you simply because Edward the class bully would get a piece of candy too? How about if Charlie, the kid that comes from the richest family in town gets a piece of candy, would I be legitimate in attacking your motives on those grounds for wanting a piece of candy? This is absurd to even think we are considering this.
I believe you have your correlation and causation mixed up sir. Areas with high minority populations tend to be, for a number of historical reasons, lower income. Lower income areas tend to have more cause for abortions due to high rates of prostitution, less availability of birth control (the pill,morning after or otherwise, not being affordable) higher rates of risky behavior like drug abuse and unprotected sex and less ability to afford a child should they accidentally get pregnant. So it makes perfect logical sense for those areas to be more likely to have abortion clinics.
Even so, the fact that high minority populations exist in them doesn't stray from the idea that it can be viewed as in the original comment, a way of controlling the less evolved species. Just substitute the race on the whole with the lesser people and you have the same effects.
Please remember, I'm not citing this as a reason for the existance today, I'm stating that it was involved in the creation. Margret Sanger was highly involed and motivated in Eugenics. This was the prime philosophy that lead to Hitlers idea of the final solution in Mime Camp (and no, this is fact, not a Godwin comparison moment). She was at least intelligent enough to not get involved in Euthanasia based around the Eugenic views. And yes, A core of the Eugenics movement at the time was that different races of people evolved differently and some were superior to others.
urthermore, abortion clinics aren't necessarily government run so they exists where ever the demand is perceived to exist. Oh, and as for communism. By definition communism would actually remove our current government system, putting a few people in control and screwing the rest of the party so it's HIGHLY unlikely that any party is supporting it.
First, I never attempted to state that Abortion Clinics were government run. They are however supported largely by grants and donations so it's not really a demand issue as much as it is an effectiveness of service issue.
Your acting like the idea is that people want the abortion clinics and birth control not that people were convinced through propaganda to kill their offspring and suppress their gene pool in society. This concept BTW, is exactly why aids is such a problem in Africa, they see the attempts at birth control and protection from spreading the disease as an attempt to force their genes out of the gene pool and destroying them as a people. Instead, they look to myths like sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure you as a crackpot remedy.
But this is little more then a distraction to the point I was attempting to make. What motivated the start of it and the associations of those who were involved with it doesn't mean its still reflective as operated today. In today, it's more of a second change at making something of life thing without the burden of parenthood while being unprepared. Again, the point is that something can take on an entirely new o0bjective or purpose in life without remaining tied to the previous motives.
Second, I didn't say that any party supported communism, and I didn't limit it to just communism. Socialism was in there too. I did say that some in the party supported socialism and communism though. By some, I guess I could have clarified that as meaning Some people but not all of them or the party itself.
Now there is a party that does support communism in America openly. This roots of this party is primarily why the US in general sees communism as a bad idea and why some left the party and hid within other parties. The Communist party in America attempted to organize the overthrow of the US government and install a dictator and institute communism in the form of
It was also founded to protect the people from those who would hold power over them.
When we vote for regulations, it is because we have determined there is a problem, and the regulations are the most efficacious method of correcting it.
We rarely vote for regulations. We vote for people who end up voting for regulations. That's one of the inherent differences between a republic and a true democracy- We elect people to do the heaving lifting for us. And they aren't limited to what we agree with.
Lack of regulation is even easier to exploit than bad regulation.
Sometimes. Please do not confuse the idea of the lack of regulations with no regulations at all. Sometimes there is need for effective regulation, it just should be the least amount possible to get the results we are after in an unbiased way.
Poor or bad regulation can lead to advantages for some and not others. It can lead to end runs around the regulation making the effect of no regulation at all for some and not others.
Look at history, child labor, unsafe workplaces, eighty hour work weeks, people were forced into all kinds of things that hurt them because they were economically desperate. Saying "Do what I say or starve" is the same as holding a gun to someone's head and demanding they comply. Especially when the government is there, with guns, saying "Yeah, he's right, you'd better do what he says, and we're here to protect his stuff so don't get any funny ideas about evening things out for yourselves."
Here is the problem with that. When there was 80 hour work weeks, farming was primarily done by hand and the alternative was working land for 80 hours a week to survive or starve. The work week mirrored the work weeks of rural life as that was the custom. If you owned your own business, you could change that, but you had to remember, it got increasingly expensive to work in non-daylight hours so they took advantage of all they could. This changed a little when electricity became a norm. Labor parties had already bargained 8-12 hour days in most locations throughout the country as early as 1791.
Things have changed and so did our expectations of what a livable work week should be. The 40 hour week was started under law not to make lives easier on the worker but to spread the amount of work around to more people. This was FDR's original reasoning behind it in the new deal coming through of the great depression -even though it mirrored the communist movement's 40 hour work week. His intent was to spread the wealth by limiting the amount of work one person could do and allow other to become employed, not make it easier for the worker. His idea was that 2 people making half as much was better then one person making it all. This is also something the Supreme court couldn't reconcile with the commerce clause because the federal government possessed no right to limit a person's otherwise legal means of employment (no right or privileges in the constitution should be used to deprive others of their rights and privileges). So a penalty was instituted in place of the 40 hour work week maximum. The penalty of time and a half (or paying 50% more for work in excess of 40 hours) was the work around because it wasn't government restricting the people from making a living, it was penalizing companies involved in interstate commerce for not employing enough people. This also brought in the concept of working by the hour instead of by the day. The tradition was a days pay of so much per day (or half a day). This is emboldened by slogan like "An Honest days pay for an honest days work" and is still instilled in tradition by per diem reimbursements and deductions. When the increase in pay became a requirement, how they were paid needed to keep track of the hours in order to comply with law.
So directly comparing the two is useful for context, it's not useful in direct comparisons as th
The problem with becoming a killer yourself is an internal struggle that often carries more weight then what others think. Why I agree with you as that would be the action I would attempt to take, I also recognize that to some, taking a life is worse then their own death. We would call them Pussies and idiots but more commonly they are called Quakers, pacifists, religion fanatics (thou shall not kill) and so on. When confronted with violence like this, we usually call the deceased.
It's hard to believe that some people would rather be dead then to attempt to stop others from killing but this is a reality that lives inside some individuals. This is why I said there is no real right answer- it's because each person would have to reconcile it with their own conscious or personal gods and demons.
Libertarians are run by big money. There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation and a government whose only function is to protect the property of the haves from the have nots.
First, this country was founded on the principle of limited government which somewhat means that the government should do the least amount necessary to fix or control a problem only after it's determined to be a problem. This is why deregulation is important to some. However, deregulation should not be confused with no regulation or no enforcement of regulation that we have seen in the somewhat recent past. Over burdensome regulation leads to problems with entering markets and competing in good faith and often opens loopholes that can be exploited by the large and well connected companies/people giving them a significant advantage over the competition.
Second, protecting the property of the haves from the have nots is sort of the entire idea behind property in the first place. You can't say something is yours if anyone can come along and take it. To think that protecting your property is a bad thing is somewhat of a disturbing idea. Without protect people's property, I could make a career out of just taking from others. Eventually, others would do the same and then instead of creating wealth, we as a society would only be reusing wealth and diminishing it's value until it's worthless.
You are a willing tool of folks like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund libertarian and tea party candidates who promise to destroy the only thing keeping them in check: government regulation. Thankfully, by voting libertarian you are just throwing your vote away, the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
Don't confuse like minded people in support of the same ideas as being part of the same subset. Otherwise, you would have to link the democrats to the military industrial complex seeing how they get large donations from defense contractors, Eugenics, and communism too. (well, unless your reality is biased and you only being willing to connect what you want to see for your own purpose, then it just becomes a self a fallacy rooted in selection bias).
The libertarian movement and the Tea Party movement might have been a gleem in someone's eyes, but they are not under the control of them and they do not take orders from anyone. The strength of both movements is the roots in reality and constitutional justice that ring more true then the BS being blathered forth by the two parties. The federal government simply wasn't supposed to be as big and as encompassing as it is. The constitution in several places limits the government to what is explicitly allowed in the constitution baring any explicit prohibitions and reserves the rest to the states and the people. People who read and understand plain English, who don't attempt to read into the constitution what they were told by someone with an agenda, can see that pretty clearly. It's like the separation of church and state the McDonnel picked threw out during a debate in MD, her opponent swore it was in the first amendment but it's no where to be found by actually reading it. The reality is that it's a concept create by Jefferson after the Constitution was ratified, and used to explain to a church in Virginia how it's supposed to protect the church from the government by limiting laws congress can make that favors one particular religion or punishes any or all of them. This gained popularity when it was used as evidence in the interpretation of the frist amendment in one case considered by the supreme court. Yet somehow, the people in the know, got away with claiming that there is actually a sentence like separate of church and state in the first amendment and instead of it being applied as the case law dictates, it means no church involvement with government at all. That is ridiculous.
Suppose that your in a room with only one way out. Someone has come into that room and started killing people closest to the door, working their way back towards you. The only way out of the room and out of harms way is to pick up a weapon and battle the person, killing them. But by doing so, you become a killer yourself.
Question, do you sit there and allow yourself to be killed or do you battle the person killing everyone risking your own death as one result or becoming a killer yourself as the other?
There is no real right answer to this outside of the sense of self preservation would sort of require you to act in some way to avoid your death. Of course in the scenario I outlines, the options are entirely capricious but they somewhat mirror what you have just limited yourself to with your non-voting reasoning. You don't want to pick the least of two evils because you are still picking evil.
However, I see it more like a self preservation issue where you are limiting the amount of harm done to yourself. And outside of this little boxed in world where there is only two options, we have a third option in reality by using our rights of speech to make sure the candidates know that we will pick the most honest candidate and reject the most dishonest candidate every time. This eventually, and hopefully in our lifetime, will send a strong message to the candidates that we want honesty above all else, and the most honest persons will only apply. Yes, it's a gamble, and yes, for it to work, it needs to be something that is long term and not wavered over some niche they present that you could benefit from. But in reality, it isn't an unobtainable goal at all.
Well, it's not really that big as some proponents of the ban claim that video games aren't art- as in there is no quantifiable speech or artistic value in them to fall under the first amendment.
So if they get their way- the ban can stay without any transferable first amendment problems unless you consider classifying something that can be copyrighted as not being speech.
You do realize that the Interior department is over all internal issues within the government or the United states right? It's by default the most expansive or largest agency, bureaucracy the US government has. If there is any corruption going on, it would most likely be there first by default. And this corruption most likely stems from way back before Bush was every thought of as a president.
The complaint said Google Apps not Google Docs. Are they one in the same or should I read the rest of the complaint? I pretty much stopped after about half way through. I seriously do not know if they are difference or if one is a rename of the other or what.
Yep, that's probably why Google listed a bunch of communications between them and the DOI in their complaint.
The evidence building up to a verbal contract can be evidence or claims of the contract in and of itself. Don't get too hung up on the term verbal as even they are documents in some ways.
I'm not sure why a Novell environment would be necessary at all. This was a bid for a hosted solution. This means that whoever won the bid would take care of everything necessary to make the bid work. They would only be connecting to it over the internet and using the front end applications which pretty much run on any modern system.
Perhaps their goal isn't as much to get tons of money for their minor app, but to make sure that they can be able to bid on larger contracts where the staked might be higher. If the government limited the solution to a Microsoft only solution, then it does seem to favor Microsoft heavily. They will need a good argument to why only Microsoft can be selected. And if they do not have a good argument, then any third party can start to compete for the contract.
Basically, I see this lawsuit more as a way to get their foot in the door then to make money from this one lost sale.
Currency: "An economic convenience". Exactly. Of course people have always been able to use foreign GOVERNMENTS currency, or to barter goods, including weights of precious metals. But that makes economic activity into a series of one off, unique trades. To have the volume to create a thriving economy. One where you have the opportunity to become wealthy, needs a stanardised system of vlue. A currency. And that's what the government does.
That's what the government does now, but we know it isn't what has always been in place. For instance, the East India Tea company issued it's own currency in English territories for it's own convenience. In the US, pre-revolutionary war, the corporate providences issued currency. And yes, most of the original colonies started out as corporate adventures. So while a government issuing a standard currency is the preferred way and modern way, it by no means is the only way.
Roads: Private enterprise creates STREETS. They build a groups of houses or commercial properties, and they connect the frontages to the nearest road or existing street with a new street. But roads link cities, towns and villages together. Roads are nearly all created by government. Toll roads are a rare exception, and there's precious few other reasons why a private enterprise would build a road (rather than a street). And not to be parochial, it's the same in the rest of the world. In England for example, the first real roads were built by the Roman GOVERNMENT. Once they left, and the kind of low/no government state you prefer existed, no more roads were built for 1000 years, until once again strong national government existed.
Dude, lets not ignore history. Just because something looks a certain way today, does not mean it is that way in fact or truth. Like I said before, the majority of roads in the US was built by private enterprise who had the goal of linking cities, manufacturing and distributing hubs and so on. This was often undertaken by rail and the last mile route was created by the businesses using the rail road. This didn't change a lot until the interstate highway system became common and the idea of a fuel tax so that they could be paid for outside of the general fund. And to that end, it's still functionally the same as private roads as in those that use it primarily pay for it through fees associated with their use. Again, the US interstate highway system was built and developed for national security (IE military) purposes, not commerce. That was a added side effect that was welcomed but not considered.
You make an idiotic comment about laws not abslutely preventing crime in reaction to my comment: "They created the laws that mean that transactions are PRETTY RELIABLE". I didn't say completely reliable or anything like it. Transactions need to be safe enough for people to have reasonable confidence, and that's what government laws and justice systems provide.
It's obvious with your blond confusion over history concerning currency and roads that I would expect you to take my comment completely out of the context while failing to understand it. The problem is with you, not me. The problem is your selective results conforming your predetermined views, in other words, you are suffering from selective bias and aren't capable of reasonably analyzing the truth of the matter.
I say "There's not a country in the world where the people thrive without a strong government who provide services and welfare through taxation." And despite some blather, you fail to name a single counter-example. Case proved.
As I said before, you are suffering from selective bias. You might be perpetually confused, but I think it's agenda ridden based on several fallacies. BTW, That blather you noted is where I said that wa
What laws are you in a hurry to create? Most of the laws made are useless, stupid, or primarily for the benefit of special interests.
Pretty much any law that needs to be passed. Granted, most of them are already passed but what about when some law needs to be modified because the congress in all it's mental foresight limited the scope of an existing law to just the things in existence today which creates a loophole for anything invented tomorrow. And of course, we see this right now with the recreation of existing laws that have the term cyber added to them in order to show they now cover the cyber realm.
As for "creating the wrong solutions for the wrong problems," how does that compare to what we have now? Right now, we have leaders who are trying to solve complete non-issues like banning flag-burning or changing the national anthem. Is that what we really need? Worse, these people are actively hurting us; taking our money and giving it to special interests.
And you have leaders failing at banning flag burning. That's what the biggest difference is right now. And yes, the majority in America is against flag burning so you can bet your ass that it would be banned by now if there was another system. Something else they are against, Gay marriage and if you had most all of America chime in on whether it should be allowed or banned, it would be banned. Here is something else that would likely be completely bad for the country, nationalism. That's right, there are quite a few people out there that think we should tariff imports in order to favor domestic production while at the same time, putting taxes on fuel under the guise of pseudoscience being passed off in the form of a religion with ulterior motivations that will only make imports more attractive.
While it might be true that these people currently in power are actively hurting us, the alternative you are suggesting would pretty much be the blood letting that kills us.
No, collaborative governance is not perfect. But can it possibly be worse than giving all power to a few people who constantly rape us?
If you don't think it could be worse, then you simply haven't thought about it. The difference is that even as much as the few people are raping us, they know at least enough to not completely pillage us. Their actions are tempered with a desire to protect their power which is something that would be completely gone/missing in a collaborative government. Further more, with as ignorant and incorrigible as many people seem to be, it wouldn't take much more then a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh type (and yes, they are on the left two, those just seem to be the most popular that I can think of right now) to completely screw the system up.
Governance by comity is too slow and often create the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. This isn't anything new and the internet or collaboration software wouldn't change anything. I mean seriously, look at the slow release cycle of Debian stable. It takes forever to get something out of them.
One of the biggest problems with pot in general is that you can't really test to see if someone is currently under the influence. The test for a first time user being under the influence would likely show up negative, if someone has been moderately using for a week or so, then it would show up more, but the problem is that heavy users will test an amount similar to moderate users under the influence without being under the influence at the time.
This is why any amounts over a certain baseline is automatic with most employers and law enforcement. If you had a nurse that smoked 2 joints a night after getting off work then tested her, she would be testing at limits above what a moderate to light person would test if they were intoxicated. If this one problem could be corrected and you could test if someone was under the influence similar to that with alcohol, I'm pretty sure that pot would be legal in a lot more places.
The school only exists because the government put it there.
Well, no. Schools existed long before government paid for them. In fact, Thomas Jefferson created one that ran on donations and tuition from more affluent students. Throughout history, schools have existed in communities without the government creating them. Schools exist because the public in general wanted it to be there- the government getting involved was a necessity born out of the laws requiring children of a certain age to attend them.
The money only exists because the government created it.
Wrong. If you said the current currency, I could agree with you. But the simple fact is that people have been using money long before the government was even involved in the US. They used gold, they used silver, they used foreign currency, and they used bank notes. We now have a standard source and form of money because of the government, but all that does is create an economic convenience.
You only managed to get it because you are working within an economy that would not exist in any advanced form were it not for the government.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Whoever told you that should be shot to get the stupid gene out of the gene pool. Societies all over the world have created advanced economies without any government intervention. People trade time, effort and creating wealth for money. This is how anyone makes money. Some time, gets paid more, some effort gets paid more, some wealth commands higher prices, but the government is only a fraction of how and why.
The government built the roads for goods to be traded along.
Wow, how stupid are you? Private roads have existed for a long time. These roads are open to the public too. For the most part, most of the roads in the US are privately created. While it's true that the government maintains them to some degree, developers created them primarily to gain access to and from where they are developing. With the exception of the Interstate highway system which was built for defense means- not economic, and a few post roads, the majority of roads in the US are in fact privately created.
They created the laws that mean that transactions are pretty reliable and you're not ripped off by who ever has the largest bunch of heavies. etc.
Actually, you are somewhat wrong here too. Laws do not stop people from doing anything. They provide penalties for doing things in violation of the law. While this has some what of a deterrence, it certain does not stop those acts.
There's not a country in the world where the people thrive without a strong government who provide services and welfare through taxation.
Really? Are you sure about that? Of course you are because you loaded the statement in your total and complete misunderstanding of the issues. Governments are created to administer common services. That is their purpose. To say there isn't a government that doesn't provide services is idiotic and I think you know that. However, the point in contention isn't if a government provides services, it's what is the right amount of services and how they are offered.
You have failed severely to make your point. All you succeeded in doing is proving to the world that you are a delusional person with a political agenda/philosophy crafted entirely out of misconceptions.
Taxation is not theft. And the truly childish are those who are ignorant enough to believe it is.
It's not? So you were be perfectly fine with the government taxing 100% of your disposable income and giving it to China or India or Africa? Would you be fine with the government taxing you 70% of your income to provide firearms to every non felon citizen, start new wars, or provide posh and l
The US has similar laws but they are limited to telephone decency and the mail which the Federal government has constitutional control over. Outside of that, it would be up to the states or local jurisdictions to make a similar law.
I mean is it more fair to allow people to keep their money that they worked for? Or is it more fair to tax them, taking a portion of that money by threat of imprisonment and force, and give it to people who's only objective work for it was to vote for a certain part? Seriously, you tell me, on the playground where you seemingly still belong, which is more fair, the person who has their lunch money and wished to keep it, the school bully who takes it from them by force. Now does the school bully seem less foolish if he is stealing your lunch money to feed a group of puppies he adopted but has no other means of supporting?
It's idiocy like your that is why the country is in the state we are in and will remain there for quite a while. Try thinking for yourself for once.
However, I would note there there is a slight difference between a child crying and some jerk blasting their radio. This is like the early 80's and the boom boxes thing all over again.
I think the point was more to the selfishness of imposing your music on the others in the Pizzeria.
If you were so set on listening to your own music, why no simply buy the pizza and take it some place where you can eat it while listening to your own music without disturbing others. I can understand you not wanting to be cooped up in your basement/apartment with cheap rent, but does that desire override the establishment's desire to play it's own music to set a mood or some one else' desire not to listen to your crap in a public place?
What would socialized health care have done differently? I mean the woman is still dead.. There are still costs associated with burying them. The family of the dead women are still disadvantages because of the premature loss of the old woman.
How would that evil socialised healthcare made much of anything different?
First, the old lady is dead so she has all the time in the world.
But the reality of it is that most cities have laws about riding bicycles on the sidewalk making it illegal. It's one of those things/laws/ordinances that generally gets over looked unless there is a problem because of it. And yes, I'm well aware of how much more dangerous it is to teach a kid to ride their bikes in the street, but that's likely why they over look it until there is a problem. So allowing or encouraging the violation of a law would likely be something done wrong during the supervision of their kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, answer this then. What would make it any different if they didn't like the sports jersey he was wearing or if he accidentally said something that offended someone? This is not unheard of. Then fact that he is gay means nothing in those motivations. Or are you suggesting that anyone who is gay or black or female automagically should have more protections somehow?
So you would say there is a need for more severe punishment if someone had plotted and executed his wife because she was black by ancestry instead of because he wanted to sleep with another woman ? Well, how about if he plotted and killed his wife because she was white and he wanted to be with a black or Latino woman because he felt that it was the only type of woman that could satisfy him?
I mean common, plotting and killing a person is a capitol crime in most areas. Those that are not seem to have some moratorium on the death penalty. So what are we really going to do, give him two life sentences in the pokey or put him through the gas chamber twice?
What traditionally matters is if the crime was accidental, the result of recklessness, negligence, of intentional actions. Almost everyone who stikes another person does so out of hate of some sort at the time of the strike. Is being on record as saying nigger or honky or chink or something like that a few days earlier justification to double the punishment? How about if it was just the repeating of a racist joke that actually was funny?
I find it hard to believe that you can't legitimately tell the differences between states of mind and how racially motivated crimes are already a deliberate state of mind.
Yea, you got it right now. I wasn't blaming modern democrats, I was saying that you can't connect them to it because of their modern support of the institutions that were born out of a different time but serve a different purpose today. And similarly, I see it the same as with the tea party and libertarian movements- Just because something might have been true yesterday doesn't mean it's true today. Attempting to make that connection out of an association in the past ridiculous without evidence of the existence today.
Ok well lets look at this in reality. If you started the rube then left, and I came over and stopped it midstream, altered a few things and then let it continue, would you still think you are responsible for it's end results? I would think not because it's not the same machine that you started with.
But lets take your lawn situation a little further. Suppose you did till the lawn, planted the seeds and applied a healthy dose of fertilizer, then moved on to a building across town. It that lawn still yours? Is it still there for your benefit? Are you still taking care of it and feeding it and maintaining it? The answer to that is maybe. You could have sold it out to someone else and now it's theirs. You could have abandoned it altogether and the neighbor took care of it, or you could still own it and enjoy it every once in a while (or get permission from the new owner to do the same). The point is, that there is no indication that the infamous billionaire Koch brothers are anywhere near the movements today. Just because they were in control at one time, does not in any way make it so today when their presence is absent. It could be true, but we need evidence outside of some 1970's connection just like we need evidence that planned parenthood is still operating with the intent of purifying the gene pool.
I agree, Just because you can't see their influence doesn't mean it isn't there. However, if I was going to make the claim that it was there, I would have to support that allegation with something over an association more then thirty years ago. If that is all we needed to do, then it would be accurate to claim that the democrats are racist socialist/communists because of something almost 100 years ago.
Sure, but if you hold a position and someone you don't like favors your position, is that grounds to abandon your position altogether? I mean common, we are not in third grade anymore (well, most of us who are voting anyways). I mean (in a third grade like position), if you had the option of getting a piece of candy but everyone in the class would get one also, should I suspect your motives and dislike you simply because Edward the class bully would get a piece of candy too? How about if Charlie, the kid that comes from the richest family in town gets a piece of candy, would I be legitimate in attacking your motives on those grounds for wanting a piece of candy? This is absurd to even think we are considering this.
The facts of life w
Even so, the fact that high minority populations exist in them doesn't stray from the idea that it can be viewed as in the original comment, a way of controlling the less evolved species. Just substitute the race on the whole with the lesser people and you have the same effects.
Please remember, I'm not citing this as a reason for the existance today, I'm stating that it was involved in the creation. Margret Sanger was highly involed and motivated in Eugenics. This was the prime philosophy that lead to Hitlers idea of the final solution in Mime Camp (and no, this is fact, not a Godwin comparison moment). She was at least intelligent enough to not get involved in Euthanasia based around the Eugenic views. And yes, A core of the Eugenics movement at the time was that different races of people evolved differently and some were superior to others.
First, I never attempted to state that Abortion Clinics were government run. They are however supported largely by grants and donations so it's not really a demand issue as much as it is an effectiveness of service issue.
Your acting like the idea is that people want the abortion clinics and birth control not that people were convinced through propaganda to kill their offspring and suppress their gene pool in society. This concept BTW, is exactly why aids is such a problem in Africa, they see the attempts at birth control and protection from spreading the disease as an attempt to force their genes out of the gene pool and destroying them as a people. Instead, they look to myths like sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure you as a crackpot remedy.
But this is little more then a distraction to the point I was attempting to make. What motivated the start of it and the associations of those who were involved with it doesn't mean its still reflective as operated today. In today, it's more of a second change at making something of life thing without the burden of parenthood while being unprepared. Again, the point is that something can take on an entirely new o0bjective or purpose in life without remaining tied to the previous motives.
Second, I didn't say that any party supported communism, and I didn't limit it to just communism. Socialism was in there too. I did say that some in the party supported socialism and communism though. By some, I guess I could have clarified that as meaning Some people but not all of them or the party itself.
Now there is a party that does support communism in America openly. This roots of this party is primarily why the US in general sees communism as a bad idea and why some left the party and hid within other parties. The Communist party in America attempted to organize the overthrow of the US government and install a dictator and institute communism in the form of
We rarely vote for regulations. We vote for people who end up voting for regulations. That's one of the inherent differences between a republic and a true democracy- We elect people to do the heaving lifting for us. And they aren't limited to what we agree with.
Sometimes. Please do not confuse the idea of the lack of regulations with no regulations at all. Sometimes there is need for effective regulation, it just should be the least amount possible to get the results we are after in an unbiased way.
Poor or bad regulation can lead to advantages for some and not others. It can lead to end runs around the regulation making the effect of no regulation at all for some and not others.
Here is the problem with that. When there was 80 hour work weeks, farming was primarily done by hand and the alternative was working land for 80 hours a week to survive or starve. The work week mirrored the work weeks of rural life as that was the custom. If you owned your own business, you could change that, but you had to remember, it got increasingly expensive to work in non-daylight hours so they took advantage of all they could. This changed a little when electricity became a norm. Labor parties had already bargained 8-12 hour days in most locations throughout the country as early as 1791.
Things have changed and so did our expectations of what a livable work week should be. The 40 hour week was started under law not to make lives easier on the worker but to spread the amount of work around to more people. This was FDR's original reasoning behind it in the new deal coming through of the great depression -even though it mirrored the communist movement's 40 hour work week. His intent was to spread the wealth by limiting the amount of work one person could do and allow other to become employed, not make it easier for the worker. His idea was that 2 people making half as much was better then one person making it all. This is also something the Supreme court couldn't reconcile with the commerce clause because the federal government possessed no right to limit a person's otherwise legal means of employment (no right or privileges in the constitution should be used to deprive others of their rights and privileges). So a penalty was instituted in place of the 40 hour work week maximum. The penalty of time and a half (or paying 50% more for work in excess of 40 hours) was the work around because it wasn't government restricting the people from making a living, it was penalizing companies involved in interstate commerce for not employing enough people. This also brought in the concept of working by the hour instead of by the day. The tradition was a days pay of so much per day (or half a day). This is emboldened by slogan like "An Honest days pay for an honest days work" and is still instilled in tradition by per diem reimbursements and deductions. When the increase in pay became a requirement, how they were paid needed to keep track of the hours in order to comply with law.
So directly comparing the two is useful for context, it's not useful in direct comparisons as th
The problem with becoming a killer yourself is an internal struggle that often carries more weight then what others think. Why I agree with you as that would be the action I would attempt to take, I also recognize that to some, taking a life is worse then their own death. We would call them Pussies and idiots but more commonly they are called Quakers, pacifists, religion fanatics (thou shall not kill) and so on. When confronted with violence like this, we usually call the deceased.
It's hard to believe that some people would rather be dead then to attempt to stop others from killing but this is a reality that lives inside some individuals. This is why I said there is no real right answer- it's because each person would have to reconcile it with their own conscious or personal gods and demons.
First, this country was founded on the principle of limited government which somewhat means that the government should do the least amount necessary to fix or control a problem only after it's determined to be a problem. This is why deregulation is important to some. However, deregulation should not be confused with no regulation or no enforcement of regulation that we have seen in the somewhat recent past. Over burdensome regulation leads to problems with entering markets and competing in good faith and often opens loopholes that can be exploited by the large and well connected companies/people giving them a significant advantage over the competition.
Second, protecting the property of the haves from the have nots is sort of the entire idea behind property in the first place. You can't say something is yours if anyone can come along and take it. To think that protecting your property is a bad thing is somewhat of a disturbing idea. Without protect people's property, I could make a career out of just taking from others. Eventually, others would do the same and then instead of creating wealth, we as a society would only be reusing wealth and diminishing it's value until it's worthless.
Don't confuse like minded people in support of the same ideas as being part of the same subset. Otherwise, you would have to link the democrats to the military industrial complex seeing how they get large donations from defense contractors, Eugenics, and communism too. (well, unless your reality is biased and you only being willing to connect what you want to see for your own purpose, then it just becomes a self a fallacy rooted in selection bias).
The libertarian movement and the Tea Party movement might have been a gleem in someone's eyes, but they are not under the control of them and they do not take orders from anyone. The strength of both movements is the roots in reality and constitutional justice that ring more true then the BS being blathered forth by the two parties. The federal government simply wasn't supposed to be as big and as encompassing as it is. The constitution in several places limits the government to what is explicitly allowed in the constitution baring any explicit prohibitions and reserves the rest to the states and the people. People who read and understand plain English, who don't attempt to read into the constitution what they were told by someone with an agenda, can see that pretty clearly. It's like the separation of church and state the McDonnel picked threw out during a debate in MD, her opponent swore it was in the first amendment but it's no where to be found by actually reading it. The reality is that it's a concept create by Jefferson after the Constitution was ratified, and used to explain to a church in Virginia how it's supposed to protect the church from the government by limiting laws congress can make that favors one particular religion or punishes any or all of them. This gained popularity when it was used as evidence in the interpretation of the frist amendment in one case considered by the supreme court. Yet somehow, the people in the know, got away with claiming that there is actually a sentence like separate of church and state in the first amendment and instead of it being applied as the case law dictates, it means no church involvement with government at all. That is ridiculous.
But yes, in or
Suppose that your in a room with only one way out. Someone has come into that room and started killing people closest to the door, working their way back towards you. The only way out of the room and out of harms way is to pick up a weapon and battle the person, killing them. But by doing so, you become a killer yourself.
Question, do you sit there and allow yourself to be killed or do you battle the person killing everyone risking your own death as one result or becoming a killer yourself as the other?
There is no real right answer to this outside of the sense of self preservation would sort of require you to act in some way to avoid your death. Of course in the scenario I outlines, the options are entirely capricious but they somewhat mirror what you have just limited yourself to with your non-voting reasoning. You don't want to pick the least of two evils because you are still picking evil.
However, I see it more like a self preservation issue where you are limiting the amount of harm done to yourself. And outside of this little boxed in world where there is only two options, we have a third option in reality by using our rights of speech to make sure the candidates know that we will pick the most honest candidate and reject the most dishonest candidate every time. This eventually, and hopefully in our lifetime, will send a strong message to the candidates that we want honesty above all else, and the most honest persons will only apply. Yes, it's a gamble, and yes, for it to work, it needs to be something that is long term and not wavered over some niche they present that you could benefit from. But in reality, it isn't an unobtainable goal at all.
Well, it's not really that big as some proponents of the ban claim that video games aren't art- as in there is no quantifiable speech or artistic value in them to fall under the first amendment.
So if they get their way- the ban can stay without any transferable first amendment problems unless you consider classifying something that can be copyrighted as not being speech.
You do realize that the Interior department is over all internal issues within the government or the United states right? It's by default the most expansive or largest agency, bureaucracy the US government has. If there is any corruption going on, it would most likely be there first by default. And this corruption most likely stems from way back before Bush was every thought of as a president.
The complaint said Google Apps not Google Docs. Are they one in the same or should I read the rest of the complaint? I pretty much stopped after about half way through. I seriously do not know if they are difference or if one is a rename of the other or what.
Yep, that's probably why Google listed a bunch of communications between them and the DOI in their complaint.
The evidence building up to a verbal contract can be evidence or claims of the contract in and of itself. Don't get too hung up on the term verbal as even they are documents in some ways.
I'm not sure why a Novell environment would be necessary at all. This was a bid for a hosted solution. This means that whoever won the bid would take care of everything necessary to make the bid work. They would only be connecting to it over the internet and using the front end applications which pretty much run on any modern system.
Perhaps their goal isn't as much to get tons of money for their minor app, but to make sure that they can be able to bid on larger contracts where the staked might be higher. If the government limited the solution to a Microsoft only solution, then it does seem to favor Microsoft heavily. They will need a good argument to why only Microsoft can be selected. And if they do not have a good argument, then any third party can start to compete for the contract.
Basically, I see this lawsuit more as a way to get their foot in the door then to make money from this one lost sale.
That's what the government does now, but we know it isn't what has always been in place. For instance, the East India Tea company issued it's own currency in English territories for it's own convenience. In the US, pre-revolutionary war, the corporate providences issued currency. And yes, most of the original colonies started out as corporate adventures. So while a government issuing a standard currency is the preferred way and modern way, it by no means is the only way.
Dude, lets not ignore history. Just because something looks a certain way today, does not mean it is that way in fact or truth. Like I said before, the majority of roads in the US was built by private enterprise who had the goal of linking cities, manufacturing and distributing hubs and so on. This was often undertaken by rail and the last mile route was created by the businesses using the rail road. This didn't change a lot until the interstate highway system became common and the idea of a fuel tax so that they could be paid for outside of the general fund. And to that end, it's still functionally the same as private roads as in those that use it primarily pay for it through fees associated with their use. Again, the US interstate highway system was built and developed for national security (IE military) purposes, not commerce. That was a added side effect that was welcomed but not considered.
It's obvious with your blond confusion over history concerning currency and roads that I would expect you to take my comment completely out of the context while failing to understand it. The problem is with you, not me. The problem is your selective results conforming your predetermined views, in other words, you are suffering from selective bias and aren't capable of reasonably analyzing the truth of the matter.
As I said before, you are suffering from selective bias. You might be perpetually confused, but I think it's agenda ridden based on several fallacies. BTW, That blather you noted is where I said that wa
Pretty much any law that needs to be passed. Granted, most of them are already passed but what about when some law needs to be modified because the congress in all it's mental foresight limited the scope of an existing law to just the things in existence today which creates a loophole for anything invented tomorrow. And of course, we see this right now with the recreation of existing laws that have the term cyber added to them in order to show they now cover the cyber realm.
And you have leaders failing at banning flag burning. That's what the biggest difference is right now. And yes, the majority in America is against flag burning so you can bet your ass that it would be banned by now if there was another system. Something else they are against, Gay marriage and if you had most all of America chime in on whether it should be allowed or banned, it would be banned. Here is something else that would likely be completely bad for the country, nationalism. That's right, there are quite a few people out there that think we should tariff imports in order to favor domestic production while at the same time, putting taxes on fuel under the guise of pseudoscience being passed off in the form of a religion with ulterior motivations that will only make imports more attractive.
While it might be true that these people currently in power are actively hurting us, the alternative you are suggesting would pretty much be the blood letting that kills us.
If you don't think it could be worse, then you simply haven't thought about it. The difference is that even as much as the few people are raping us, they know at least enough to not completely pillage us. Their actions are tempered with a desire to protect their power which is something that would be completely gone/missing in a collaborative government. Further more, with as ignorant and incorrigible as many people seem to be, it wouldn't take much more then a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh type (and yes, they are on the left two, those just seem to be the most popular that I can think of right now) to completely screw the system up.
Governance by comity is too slow and often create the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. This isn't anything new and the internet or collaboration software wouldn't change anything. I mean seriously, look at the slow release cycle of Debian stable. It takes forever to get something out of them.
One of the biggest problems with pot in general is that you can't really test to see if someone is currently under the influence. The test for a first time user being under the influence would likely show up negative, if someone has been moderately using for a week or so, then it would show up more, but the problem is that heavy users will test an amount similar to moderate users under the influence without being under the influence at the time.
This is why any amounts over a certain baseline is automatic with most employers and law enforcement. If you had a nurse that smoked 2 joints a night after getting off work then tested her, she would be testing at limits above what a moderate to light person would test if they were intoxicated. If this one problem could be corrected and you could test if someone was under the influence similar to that with alcohol, I'm pretty sure that pot would be legal in a lot more places.
Well, no. Schools existed long before government paid for them. In fact, Thomas Jefferson created one that ran on donations and tuition from more affluent students. Throughout history, schools have existed in communities without the government creating them. Schools exist because the public in general wanted it to be there- the government getting involved was a necessity born out of the laws requiring children of a certain age to attend them.
Wrong. If you said the current currency, I could agree with you. But the simple fact is that people have been using money long before the government was even involved in the US. They used gold, they used silver, they used foreign currency, and they used bank notes. We now have a standard source and form of money because of the government, but all that does is create an economic convenience.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Whoever told you that should be shot to get the stupid gene out of the gene pool. Societies all over the world have created advanced economies without any government intervention. People trade time, effort and creating wealth for money. This is how anyone makes money. Some time, gets paid more, some effort gets paid more, some wealth commands higher prices, but the government is only a fraction of how and why.
Wow, how stupid are you? Private roads have existed for a long time. These roads are open to the public too. For the most part, most of the roads in the US are privately created. While it's true that the government maintains them to some degree, developers created them primarily to gain access to and from where they are developing. With the exception of the Interstate highway system which was built for defense means- not economic, and a few post roads, the majority of roads in the US are in fact privately created.
Actually, you are somewhat wrong here too. Laws do not stop people from doing anything. They provide penalties for doing things in violation of the law. While this has some what of a deterrence, it certain does not stop those acts.
Really? Are you sure about that? Of course you are because you loaded the statement in your total and complete misunderstanding of the issues. Governments are created to administer common services. That is their purpose. To say there isn't a government that doesn't provide services is idiotic and I think you know that. However, the point in contention isn't if a government provides services, it's what is the right amount of services and how they are offered.
You have failed severely to make your point. All you succeeded in doing is proving to the world that you are a delusional person with a political agenda/philosophy crafted entirely out of misconceptions.
It's not? So you were be perfectly fine with the government taxing 100% of your disposable income and giving it to China or India or Africa? Would you be fine with the government taxing you 70% of your income to provide firearms to every non felon citizen, start new wars, or provide posh and l
The US has similar laws but they are limited to telephone decency and the mail which the Federal government has constitutional control over. Outside of that, it would be up to the states or local jurisdictions to make a similar law.
What ever gave you that Idea?
I mean is it more fair to allow people to keep their money that they worked for? Or is it more fair to tax them, taking a portion of that money by threat of imprisonment and force, and give it to people who's only objective work for it was to vote for a certain part? Seriously, you tell me, on the playground where you seemingly still belong, which is more fair, the person who has their lunch money and wished to keep it, the school bully who takes it from them by force. Now does the school bully seem less foolish if he is stealing your lunch money to feed a group of puppies he adopted but has no other means of supporting?
It's idiocy like your that is why the country is in the state we are in and will remain there for quite a while. Try thinking for yourself for once.
There are quite a few restaurants that have a policy of making people leave if that happens.
Heres a story about one of them.
http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=13107715
It seems that it's happening in other countries too.
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/pricewatch/2008/07/31/crying-babies-not-welcome/
However, I would note there there is a slight difference between a child crying and some jerk blasting their radio. This is like the early 80's and the boom boxes thing all over again.
I think the point was more to the selfishness of imposing your music on the others in the Pizzeria.
If you were so set on listening to your own music, why no simply buy the pizza and take it some place where you can eat it while listening to your own music without disturbing others. I can understand you not wanting to be cooped up in your basement/apartment with cheap rent, but does that desire override the establishment's desire to play it's own music to set a mood or some one else' desire not to listen to your crap in a public place?
What would socialized health care have done differently? I mean the woman is still dead.. There are still costs associated with burying them. The family of the dead women are still disadvantages because of the premature loss of the old woman.
How would that evil socialised healthcare made much of anything different?
First, the old lady is dead so she has all the time in the world.
But the reality of it is that most cities have laws about riding bicycles on the sidewalk making it illegal. It's one of those things/laws/ordinances that generally gets over looked unless there is a problem because of it. And yes, I'm well aware of how much more dangerous it is to teach a kid to ride their bikes in the street, but that's likely why they over look it until there is a problem. So allowing or encouraging the violation of a law would likely be something done wrong during the supervision of their kids.