Why must he do without or leave? I mean the cornerstone of democracy, even in republics like America, is that if you disagree with something, you can speak out against it and attempt to sway enough support to get it fixed or changed.
It would seem that the options you are allowing only mirror those in a dictatorship or some place where free speech has been displaced by public loyalty and pledged allegiance. It that really the world you wish to have?
I wouldn't count Public radio as above the rest. I listen to it quite often and it's riddled with opinionated reporting and biased approaches that more or less pushed agendas. Public television is much in the same light with it's programing too (and yes, I watch a considerable amount of that too). Of course this has been no secrete to many people. It seems the only ones in the dark are the ones already leaning towards it's biases.
I'm not going to disagree with your statement but I must say that it leaves the impression that what you mentioned isn't applicable to the main stream journalism.
I hope this isn't your view too. I mean the main stream media has more then a few times ignored the facts in support of whatever goal it had in mind. Just look at CNN and their support for liberals, Fox News and their support for conservatives, MSNBC and their attacks on conservatives (for ratings from the likes of the idiot Olberman), the LA times, NY post, Wall Street Journal and so on and so on. It may not be "all the time" but it defiantly exists contrary to the claims of unbiased journalistic integrity and reporting. Even the AP was caught pushing doctored photos of war scenes and so on. I guess the biggest difference is that it's harder to spot and they aren't as copious and belligerent about it.
A lot of the "up in arms" is little more then a goading to the people who claimed stuff Bush did was the worst thing since they found out the moon wasn't really made of green cheese. It's sort of an "if it was so bad, then why is your guy doing it" thing. It really isn't a double standard as much as it is forcing pretentious asses to admit they might have been wrong or that their guy was no different. It's sort of like the never does anything wrong goody two shoes who always has something to say about your life or something getting popped for doing something they just got done lecturing you on not doing and then bringing that fact up to them.
G.W, didn't need to rely on Nixon or Johnson. He got away with what a lot happened because of incompetence leading to technical problems. This is especially true with the missing emails. The white house supposedly archived the PST files containing the emails because the firm that convinced them switching to Exchange was going to be more productive couldn't extract the emails and sort them and they couldn't get the email archive on line. Something like three years past with nothing but nightly backups of PST files for email retention and the email retention system once working was totally indelicate for the purpose of retrieving the previous emails.
What ended up happening is that each days PST file had to be opened and searched and often restored from backup for any information needed for each computer that might have been used with the accounts. Then some of the tapes came up missing and bla bla bla, we have what we have right now. Now this change over was actually commisioned under Clinton because the old email system was outgrown and being patched together but it was clear that it wouldn't last. If they switched to something like a Sendmail or Postfix Email server the email would have been on index-able plain text files that could easily have been rolled into a simple relational database capable of filling in the retention needs. Instead, a propriatary format was used and we have what we see today.
You have little idea about the government or how it works, don't you.
A representative is responsible to his office he holds, the people control electing him in or electing others in and his office is over the people as well as everything that effects the people. It doesn't make a prince or a king when a representative, be it a congressman, the president, the local governor or whatever acts independent of the people. It's precisely why the form of government is the way it is. If you don't like that, then say so but don't exaggerate and call them something they are not just because you are confused. And if you want to change it, either get a constitutional amendment going or start a revolt and install your own government.
The parent explained things pretty accurately and your inability to accept that is your problem, not a problem with the system or the op. The system has been in place for over 220 years in this country and your just now objecting to it.
You do realize that Treason is a specific legal terms and requires specific actions to have taken place with the witness of at least two people right?
You can't prosecute anyone in the administration for treason relating to acts of the administration. And you can't change the law without changing the constitution to have the legal term treason be applied more places or prosecuted easier. It's in the damn constitution for a reason, it's because however catastrophic an administration or government's official can be, you can always call it treason to some extent. This is the reason why treason was specifically limited to levying war against the US or the States in the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort and requires testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Simply running the country into the ground is no where near treason.
I can't believe I missed this the first time you said it. Now I know your only source of information is FOXNews. The stock market crash happened before FDR was in power and housing had been declining for years before that, similar in some ways to our current crisis. There are many things that contributed to the Depression but you will hardly find a consensus that it was caused by FDR unless you only watch FOXNews.
OMG, I am convinced that you are a complete moron. No one, Let me repeat that so your Clear, NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE blamed FRD for the great depression. No one at all, Not I, Not historians, no one.
The quote by FDR was where he knowingly states that the social programs that he later enacts are unconstitutional and out of the reach of the federal government. Two years after saying this, programs he supported and worked to implement were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and he said "so, make me stop" knowing that he controlled the executive branch of government and the courts have no power whatsoever at all to do anything outside or making a ruling to stop him. He then started stacking the courts and Chief Justice Marshal expanded the role of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown. This is basic high school civics history, did they stop teaching that when you went through public education?
Perhaps it would do you some good to start watching Fox News or something.
BTW, this expansion of the interstate commerce clause is specifically what they federal government used to make drugs illegal. You mentioned in another post that you didn't agree with that and it is precisely the straying away from the constitution that has allowed the federal government to grab power it doesn't otherwise have and make arbitrary laws it has no business making.
I'm not sure you are aware of this but James Madison doesn't determine what the actual Constitution means. The courts do. You lost this one, get over it. As for the 16th ammendment I mentioned that because it specifically allows taxes on income, something a lot of conservatives think is illegal for some reason. Those two parts of the constitution allow for the government to collect income taxes and spend money for the general welfare of the United States. It doesn't matter what Madison said or what you think. It matters how it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. If you're so sure of yourself you should go to court and see how badly you lose.
Are you a fucking moron?
The courts look at what James Madison says to determine what the constitution says. The federalist papers and notes surrounding the creation and adoption of the constitution is the primary tool they use in their interpretations. They also use existing laws of the time and definitions of words as they were used during the time of the writing of the constitution. The DC gun ban case draws on almost all of these is you care to educate yourself.
As for the 16th amendment allowing tax based on income, you need to quit putting words in other people's mouths. Despite the fact that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified properly and the courts said that it has since then came into "compliance", I never said taxation was unconstitutional. No conservative that I know of thinks of that as some core belief either. And yes, I know quite a few conservatives. But if you would have read my post, you would have known that I wasn't even talking about the constitutionality of taxes or the 16th amendment. I was talking about your notion that it gives the government the right to enter into unconstitutional social program which is flat out false.
And your notion of what the courts say is wrong too. To date, no one has been able to show standing on the constitutionality of welfare. The General welfare clause in the constitution doesn't mean what you think it does and if anyone can show harm enough that the courts will consider the case, the courts will look at what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Presidents John Adams, George Washington, Franklin Pierce, Grover Cleveland, and FDR said in connection with it to make their opinion. You simply don't know how the courts decide these matters, your an uneducated fool. A court case that explicitly shows this is Marbury v. Madison and you should get familiar with it. It's the first US supreme court case that shows the court has a right of Judicial review and in doing so, it explicitly references Alexander Hamilton and the intentions of the framers of the constitution in interpreting the constitution.
This is why I can't take you seriously. The New Testament as evidence? None of the books were written at the time of Jesus' supposed life. Josephus? Maybe you should actually do a little research. Josephus' writings about Christ are known forgeries and the tomb you speak of is highly disputed. In fact my friend who is an archaeologist worked with the head of the team that discovered the tomb. Do you know what he found out? The guy is a crackpot. He isn't respected in the field and my friend never ended up working with him again. There is absolutely no concrete evidence of Jesus' existence.
Lol.. Name me some creditable sources that says Josephus was a forgery. It doesn't matter if the New Testament was written after Jesus' death, it's a record that existed long before Ann Rand. Or was your actually wanting proof that Jesus was a live person? There isn't much disputing that outside of people like you who think that it isn't possible if you can't see. Your also making shit up because the "guys", not guy, who claims to have found his family tomb was using it to disprove Jesus' devine rights. It seems that your flat out denying anything about him despite ample evidence and plenty of people who are convinced of the historical records of at least a person named Jesus. It should also be noted that Jesus isn't a real name, it's a transliteration of a hebrew word that the greeks didn't have a version of.
This was my fault for posting to quickly. I was mixing up my numbers from the stock crach and the unemployment rates. Despite that mix up it doesn't change the point of what I said at all. The fact that you are making such a big deal out of it proves to me you have no case.
No, I addressed your point sufficiently before the 30% remark. I'm making a big deal out of it because you attempted to make a statement based around your opinion when you couldn't even get something as verifiable as an unemployment rate correct. You actually brought up the wrong numbers acting like you were right while attempting to chastise someone else for what you perceived as being wrong. The only reason the 30% is important is because it show how fucking imperfect you are despite your best efforts to pretend otherwise and hold others to higher standards. If you want to claim I don't or didn't have a case, then go back and address what I said about your premise. It doesn't focus on some arbitrary number you pulled out of your ass for "effect". I strongly believe you have a comprehension problem.
That paragraph is more proof you have no idea what you are talking about and just continue to spout off Republican talking points. There was very little debate about the Patriot ACT. Republicans also plopped a huge budget on the Democrats just 24 hours before it was to be voted on and we weren't in an economic crisis at the time like we are now when time is of the essence.
Why do you make shit up? Especially when it is easily verified by the very same medium that you are using to post your shit with? House bill HR2975 was introduced to the house on 10-02-2001, it was introduced to the senate as S.1510 on 10-04-2001. HR.3004 was introduced to the house on 10-03-2001. Both those bills went to comity (the normal process) and received the proper debate involving members of both parties. S.1510 was introduced in the senate by Sen Thomas A Daschle, a democrat. These bills evolved and came out of comity as HR 3162 which was reintroduced in the house on 10-23-2001, went for a vote after a discussion on 10-24 in the house and 10-25 in the senate and signed into law by the president on 10-26. The bill was always public knowledge, it was made in congress where it is supposed to be and not off site somewhere in a back room, and it was known about for 20 some days with open discussion and public record before the votes were made. It was also supported by 98% of the senate and the majority of the house whi
Just for reference, these are the parts of the constitution that do allow for social programs. Interpret them how you like but they can easily be intpreted to justify welfare, education spending, transportation spending, and a lot of other programs that conservatives tend to declare deride and occasionally claim are unconstitutional.
Lol.. Actually, if you would have paid attention to any of the quotes I provided, you would know that you're flat out wrong here. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and many others including Roosevelt who stacked the courts and caused a constitutional crisis in order to get unconstitutional laws upheld have publicly stated that Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930" just before causing this crisis.
In fact, Jefferson and Hamilton specifically addressed the general welfare clause and specifically stated that your wrong. This was done when attempting to explain what the constitution means and encourage it's adoption. Anyone claiming it does something specifically with welfare is just flat out wrong. And no, it cannot be interpreted any other way.
As for the 16th amendment, you don't know what your talking about. The apportionment means that each state gets a number appropriate to its population. When the 16th was made, the taxes assigned to a state was uniform and apportionment to the state which put differing geographical areas and economy structures at a disadvantage. The 16th doesn't authorize social programs, it simply removed this direct apportionment from the requirement of capitation. Here is a record of the debate surrounding the creation of the 16th amendment. Of course you can read the entire congressional record surrounding it and probably find a few more. But you cannot just twist things to mean anything you want. Everything in the constitution has a specific purpose and meaning and was explained by the people who supported it or apposed it. I can't take a contract I have with you and jack the prices or the amounts you owe me up arbitrarily because times have changed and more people around me support the new values. We would be bound by the original interpretation and meaning of the contract regardless of who wanted to ignore or change what.
Oh it's still being discussed by people like you but if you think that it's ever going to be reality keep dreaming. You may think the government has no right to do so but you're wrong. If that's your own personal belief fine but I would start looking for a new country if I was you.
You think? I think it is happening right now. Many people, and I mean many people who claimed to be democrats are getting fed up with the take from me because someone else can't manage their affairs properly. I know of two die hard democrats in local government who are thinking of changing parties right now because of the mortgage bailout bullshit. And no, I'm not wrong on what they have a right to do, it's a matter of principle not petty excuses to why your not capable of supporting yourself.
There is justification for taxes. That's where you're wrong. You may not like all the decisions and you may not like our government but it's still a legitimate governement. You seem to be either advocating for running the country for free or total anarchy, neither of which is an option. Otherwise I don't know what fantasyland you are imagining where there can possibely be a functioning governement without taxes.
Don't put word in my mouth. I never said there wasn't a justification for taxes and I never said there wasn't a justification for the government spending the money collected through taxes. I said justify how you have rights over me, justify how you get the idea that you failing to do what you think is important gives you the right to take from me or anyone else to do it. As for the government being legitimate, when they become illegitimate, you see it change hands. As for the fantasy land, it must be in your head because you have assumes things I never said and are acting as if it's my personal world view or something. You need to pay attention, you probably wouldn't be unemployed right now if you did that a little better.
Welform reform and gutting welfare are two totally different things. I'm not sure how you can justify welfare but at the same time say government has no right to take your money and give to other people. The social programs we have in place prove you are wrong. You may have a personal belief but it isn't a societal belief and it certainly isn't law.
No, I didn't say the government didn't have the right to take my money and give it to others, I said you didn't have the right, through government or not to take my money. In other words, you seem to be imposing yourself over others who have achived more then you have. If the state government wants to take some money and help people with a hand up, I don't care. But when those people assume a right to a hand out, it becomes a problem. The federal government has not place in welfare at all. You still haven't justified your statement, what make you think you have the right to my money over me? It's a simple question and requires a simple answer and it pertains to a statement you specifically made.
Take off your tinfoil hat. No one is going to kill you for not paying taxes. Yes will probably go to prison but how are you supposed to enfoce taxation if there are no repercussions? I'd like to know where in the world you could possibly live at least as comfortably as in the US and pay less taxes. You can't. Pretty much every first world country taxes more than the US.
Yes, they are. They send people with guns to take your freedom away, when you resist, they shoot you. I don't know how much clearer then that it can be. That's exactly how I put it before. BTW, taxation for needed expenditures is different then taxation because you have a right to my money. As force enforcing taxation, evict them from the country if they don't want to pay, but don't make the taxes excessive because of unconstitutional programs and people who think they have a right to the liberties I
You mean like the new testament in the Bible? The writings of Josephus or the discovery of his family tomb or what? I mean there isn't much question that someone named Jesus existed and all you have to do is read the bible to see what people claimed he said and taught.
That's a good comparison. Popeye and Jesus are both fictional and both have fictional abilities. Good point.
Ahh, I see your not going for debate and instead attempting to attack people with inciting statements. Your mental prowels must amaze yourself.
Welcome to real life. This isn't a strictly goverment problem.
You having a problem following a conversation? No one said it was.
You are aware that the depression saw 25% unemployment right? Let's just knock that figure down to 25%. The effect is the same.
Yes, 25%, the problem wasn't with the number it was with your exaggeration. When you present false facts to back your opinions up, your end up believing in wrong and incorrect ideas.
I have friends and a loving family. I have a lease and a live-in girlfriend but without the unemployment benefits we wouldn't be making it right now, I would have been evicted and wouldn't be able to move in anywhere else without a job.
Actually, that's a lie. There would be places you could move into but they wouldn't be to your liking. Moving in with a friend or family member is one option. Taking the welfare option is another. Still, in most cities, there are homeless shelters and temporary housing specifically designed for that situation. I don't particularly care if you had to move. or not.
All of my friends are either married with kids, living in a small house or apartment. Both my parents got laid off about 10 years ago and are older so my mother never got another job because not many people want to hire a 60 year old Cobol programmer. My father got laid off and found a new job not long after but the pay is 60% of what he used to get. Overall they are making only about 1/3 of what they were 10 years ago.
It sounds like they could benefit from you moving in and taking their lawnmower around and providing extra cash for the family. If you mean that they wouldn't have you, then I suggest you work on your people skills a little and rebuild whatever bridges with them you burned. Being a small house doesn't matter, you don't have to be comfortable, just living within your means.
Both my brothers can be laid off at any time in their jobs because the economy is directly affecting their jobs. Take a trip in someone else's shoes and maybe you'll learn something.
Totally irrelevant. Your entire problem seems to be manufactures in your mind, you can't do something because you don't want to not because you can't. Even with unemployment, there are a number of things you could do to lessen the costs of living.
Really? Mission Accomplished! A "War on Terror" isn't really a war that ends. Just like the "War on Drugs".
Please explain this point within the context that I provided. If you can't understand that simple difference between off budget emergency spending and entitlement programs, then you really need to shut the hell up about the government until such time as you actually learn something.
Just like the Patriot Act and just about everything the Republicans did for six years under Bush. It didn't matter though.
Actually, no, the patriot act received a full schedule of debate on both floors of congress and was supported by members from both sides of the isle just like members of both sides apposed it. And no, your completely wrong about the "
Way to miss the point. This was settled a long time ago.
Obviously it wasn't or we wouldn't be discussing it. You don't have a right to take from me through government or not.
People pay taxes. They continue to pay taxes because the people have legitimized the government.
Government's have been destroyed and the legitimacy removed because of excessive taxation and illegitimate used of the tax money. You said you right to existence is more important them my right to keep what I worked for. You need to justify that and you need to do it in a way that doesn't involve an abusive government passing laws. The laws were passed for a reason, not because all government's have a default function. Without justification, it is no different then the armed robbery that happens on the street- because you wanted something someone else worked for.
The government then makes use of that money for various reasons, including some you disapprove of. Now there may be something wrong with that in your eyes but you're going to have to deal with it or hope your personal crusade makes sense to the majority of people and it won't. I guess I just don't understand why people are still crying about social programs. They're not going anywhere no matter how much of a stink you want to make about them. People made their minds up years agoYou're free to try and convice people otherwise but it's just an excercise in futility. I think most people, especially at this time of economic crisis, understand that anything can happen to them at any time. That's enough for everyday Americans to support these social programs you despise.
Actually, it isn't an exercise in futility. In the 90's we got some pretty decent welfare reform. But you should note that I have said nothing about despising the welfare roles, nor have I said anything about wanting to over turn them. I simply asked you to justify why you think you have rights that trump mine. You are the one that said "my right to life, health, and pursuit of happiness trumps your right to keep all your money" aren't you? What if I just stopped making money that you can take? Oh, wait, we end up in the same situation we see ourselves in today.
So what makes your right or perceived right more important then mine or the guy who decides to rob someone? In both scenarios, we are being held at gun point in order to force us to surrender our money. If we don't do it voluntarily, the government will send people with guns and they might even take your life or freedoms away.
That's what's wrong with modern conservatives. Instead of trying to streamline existing programs they just want to throw everything out. A lot of people are for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency but that doesn't mean they want to scrap social programs. If conservatives don't figure out how to successfully run goverment instead of trying to drown it in a bathtub they will become even more irrelevant than they are now.
As you completely missed my point in my post, I can see you have completely missed a few key things with this portion of your statement. First of all, not all conservatives think alike. Second, the argument to get rid of the programs aren't because they aren't needed, it's because the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to provide them. The states may depending on their own constitutions and laws but the federal government doesn't. The constitution is after all, the document creating the structure of the federal government and is the covenant between the people and the powers they granted the government and prohibited the government from taking. The constitution is the very fabric that provides the legitimacy of the federal government. Streamlining a program that is unconstitutional and goes against the very intentions of the founding fathers when setting this country up is not an option.
It's difficult to take you seriously if you are going to use fictional characters as the basis of your argrument
It's difficult to take you seriously when you can't even grasp the context of the statement. The character, fictional or not (and there is a good bit of evidence suggesting Jesus wasn't fictional without even bothering to get into the miracles and son of god thing), has been around and availible for more then two centuries. Ayn Rand has been around for a while too, not quite as long but a while. And the context is that of personal charity verses a faceless bureaucracy presumably to make you feel good without getting your hands dirty. It's really no different then eating spinach as inspired by a fictional character in a cartoon as part of a healthy diet to grow big and strong. If thee association to a fictional character or fictional feats a character supposedly did negates everything associated with them, then your post is meaningless too because you assume your more intelligent then you are thereby creating a fictional environment.
Typical conservative BS. Everyone is "lazy and incompetent" that works for a goverment institution. There is one giant disadvantage that you don't even gloss over. What happens to people when no one donates? What happens when 30% of people are unemployed. Where does the money come from?
Actually, no. He said attractive to the lazy and incompetent not that government or everyone working for it was lazy and incompetent. That means come not all government employees are lazy or incompetent. It mean some not all government organizations are run in a lazy or incompetent fashion.
And no, he didn't gloss over the fact that no one donates. That's inborn into the problem when some faceless bureaucracy takes care of it. Why would anyone personally donate when money is taken from them by force and used as charity. Without government involvement and faceless bureaucracies, people would not have that escape and be forced to deal with the problems of society. As it is now, the people who are greedy just escape guilt free because the "government takes care of them".
As for the 30% unemployment, you seriously means to inject a fictional number or premise into your argument when you just got done misconstruing the Jesus reference and making an ass of yourself? You must think that it's Ok as long as you do it right? Maybe if you label it "conservative" first, you think you can get by with doing exactly what you scolded him for? Let me tell you, your shit stinks too. Your political bias has caused you to totally misconstrue two arguments, one of which was directly related to something you specifically posted. Should I say typical liberal BS and dismiss everything you say now? Labeling something doesn't make the points disappear, it doesn't make them irrelevant, and it doesn't make them wrong. The points themselves within the context they were made are the only things that determine their value against the facts and truth. Your opinion is not fact so your shouldn't be presenting opinion as fact.
She was fired maybe? Employers aren't required to pay benefits if you quit or are fired for good reason. Either that or your state sucks, because I was laid off and no on was going to help me EXCEPT the goverment. No one I know has any money to give right now. If it wasn't for the goverment I would be sleeping under a bridge in sub-zero temperatures.
Perhaps you should look at that as a life lesson and reevaluate how you treat other people. Money isn't everything you know, I lost a job back in the early 90's and I had to find 3 other people to move in just to pay the bills. I was part time even though I averaged 36 hours a week so I got no unemployment and no welfare without kids. One of the manufacturing plants relocated without notice and left twenty five percent of the town unemployed. We found land that people let us put large
Not quite. I just believe that my right to life, health, and pursuit of happiness trumps your right to keep all your money. You definitely sound like a kooky Randian when seem more concerned about your paycheck than anything else in the world.M
Gee, my neighbor thought the same thing. He is now serving 5-10 for armed robbery. Tell me again where your self-centered-ness and greed is right or different?
Notice how it says on their behalf and not bidding their will?
That's the entire idea behind a republic. The representative acts for the benefit of the people, the state, or whatever the represent, not at the discretion of the people or the will of the people. But we have other problems like the constitutional limits on the federal government and so on. I can go into the long ass speech about how we have ignored those limes forever but instead, I will just state that I bet you don't even understand the purpose of the federal government.
The federal government in the US was never intended to work for the people. It was never intended to be "democratic". It's entire intent was to act as the head of state for the states when dealing with foreign matters. It's role is very explicitly spelled out in the constitution and limits were places on it and the states by the constitution. The senators were originally appointed by the states, the president is/or supposed to be more or less the governor of governors. The only say the people was supposed to have was the representatives. The 17th amendment came along after the civil war in an attempt to stop states from appointing hostile senators and because hostilities within the states made it difficult to select senators. It moved the selection of senators from the state legislator to a popular election by the people but it did not change the role of the senate which was to represent the state.
People nowadays either through their lack of knowledge about US history, failure to actually read the constitution, or because of some romantic nothing implanted by the powers to be, seem to think the role of the federal government is way more then it was ever intended to be. The comment that started this part of the thread is certainly confused about it. In fact, I think he slept through his entire government an civics classes in high school. Poverty, unemployment, pollution, are all items that should be handled by the states. The tenth amendment is there for a reason. The framers of the constitution and this county didn't just get bored and decide to add arbitrary text to it for no apparent reason.
The only democracy we have on the federal lever is in how we elect our representatives and senators. The senators are obligated to represent the state (as originally intended) and the representative are obliged to the people. It's the balance of "power" in how the states are governed within the union. Again, the federal government is supposed to govern the union of the states, not the people.
Here in the US, no one has lost their home because of a medical bill either. They lost their homes because they didn't pay for insurance and instead spent the money elsewhere. Almost everyone who can afford a home to lose can afford insurance. When the subject of government health comes up, I always see people taking their boats to the lake or riding their 4 wheelers or driving around in their $5.00 a gallon for every 9 miles of travel diesel truck they drive like a sports car saying it's a great thing. It's obvious they think that they won't have to pay for it with higher taxes and think they can just focus on more meaningless toys. Most of the people who "lose" their homes, are people who could have afforded insurance and wouldn't not have lost them if they actually paid it instead of squandering the money somewhere else. And yes, even in Spain, your paying for it by paying increased taxes one your income, products and services, and almost everything else. It's not like it is free even though costs controls might make it cheaper.
Of they aren't obligated to pay more taxes, then they simply don't owe more money. The lack of them owing does not mean that someone who does funds anything. I'm pretty sure I make more then you do and pay more taxes then you do (at least at one point in time), does that mean I'm funding you?
That's actually only state tax they have dodged. For anyone not living in Washington or Nevada, it doesn't effect them. MS will still have to pay it's federal corporate taxes. There 48 other states that no one would be effected by whatsoever at all because of that.
Also, the current tax laws say your supposed to pay the least amount your legally obligated to. If your not legally obligated to pay something, that doesn't mean others are subsidizing it. When I deduct my Mortgage interest, it doesn't mean your mandatef to fund my home purchase.
You do realize that the white house wasn't the "White House" during the war of 1812 right?
It got that name because of the whitewash done after you burnt it up to hide the smoke damage. It also wasn't famous or precious until after that. we owe it all to your ancestors.
You ignore facts inconvenient to your arguments, so you are not worth debating, but also your math is awful.
Hey idiot, I made the arguemnt and I made the facts of the argument. I'm not ignoring anything, I created the scenario so it follows my rules. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad or something but that's your problem not mine. The scenario I set up is typical in my area and most of the areas that I have lived in. If you don't like it, get over it, It is what many people do every damn day. You need to let go of the fallacy that the world is how you think it is because it is all you have ever experienced.
You say 35 minutes at 65 mph = 4 hrs at 15 mph. Then you ramble on about 'traffic and stuff', and make a lame attempt to justify the whole stinking package by saying you used an extreme example. Sort of proves my point, no? Ever heard of public transit? Blows any cost comparison with a personal car out of the water.
It doesn't take an advanced degree in physics to know that public transit sucks or is totally nonexistent in most areas. It's 5 miles from my house before I can even get a cab, we have no public transit outside of that to speak of. There is a shuttle bus that takes people from a parking lot a few blocks away to down town because there isn't enough parking but that's about it. In fact, I would bet that most cities in the US don't have effective public transit system and you need to get away from home and see what the fuck is really out there.
anyways, for the math, from where I live, it's roughly 40 miles to the next big city that has all the decent paying jobs. You can't ride a bike on the freeway, it's illegal so you have to take the longer routes with the stop lights and so on. If your working here, you either have one of the few good paying jobs or your working at restaurants. You have to drive 30-40 miles one way to get the good paying jobs outside that. This isn't unusual either, I know many people in California that commute 100 miles round trip for work with a decent pay. And yes, California does have public transportation, it just doesn't serve every one. In Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida, its the same damn way in many places. That's why the freeways are always clogged.
Now a 40 mile trip on a freeway will be about half the distance as one that has to go around it. I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. I apologize if I took some liberties with you intelligence. It won't happen again.
Generally, you have to show harm has happened intentionally or unintentionally. I can't speak about other jurisdictions because I'm not too familiar with laws outside the US.
However, inside the US, I'm not sure anyone can show harm that Google has caused. At best, all harm shown or implied are stretches of the imagination. Even if the potential is there, our legal system is set up in a way that you actually have to do something wrong in order to be punished for it. Otherwise the state could write speeding tickets to anyone who owns a car that can physically go over the posted speed limit at any given time. The potential generally isn't enough for action against that company/person, there has to be an action.
Even in states that have laws like the attractive nuisance doctrine which basically states that if something can be attractive to children who should but might not know any better, you need to take extra steps to protect against their injury. There has to be an act with injury or something that causes any punishment to be handed out. Examples of attractive nuisances might be swimming pools without fences and gates around them, heavy equipment parked where children can get access to it and not secured from starting or moving to where harm may happen to kids playing on it (IE, fence it in and remove the keys, lower all hydraulic parts so gravity can't drop them on top of the kids), or a broken piece of playground equipment not secured from harming kids or simply marked with a sign they can't read. Open holes in fields that aren't fenced off from the public, dangerous or wild animals that can be approached by people and so on. The idea is that some kids can't read the warning signs and might be attracted to the danger without knowing it is there. I would say that the attractive nuisance is one of the most flexible types of laws out there but it still requires a specific action (harm) to happen before it can be enforced.
Any Smuck can, but entering the market does not mean you are providing something that people want or think they need. I had a great idea for pickles and sardine flavored Ice Cream (it's better then it sounds), how successful do you think I would be competing against Ben & Jerry's or Bordon brands?
There is the thing, entry to market doesn't mean success in that market. So don't confuse failure to succeed for a barrier to entry.
It shouldn't be about getting an ad campaign that is effective. The effectiveness is all up to the person running the campaign not the provider or media outlet. The only way I can see what your describing as being problematic is if Google charged disproportionately higher then similar services or refused to provide service or service at similar costs as your competitors.
The feeling or insinuation that someone needs to use a specific service or product to be effective isn't/shouldn't be in itself enough to show damage. Otherwise adobe and Microsoft should have been held accountable long ago for the government's reliance on PDFs and word DOCs. And yes, there are alternatives now, but that wasn't always the case. But this idea hasn't come to passing because ultimately, it's the users independent choice that put those formats into the positions they are/where in and as long as neither stopped competition when they did become the default standard, it shouldn't matter much.
As for the government going after Google, it won't happen. It's pure lip service and here is why. Google's Chief Executive Eric Schmidt actively supported Obama's election and actually pounded the campaign trail for him. Many other Google execs and employees have done the same. In fact, it has led people to speculate that Google will have a wide variety of payback options and for some reason, I don't think President Obama is going to let anyone take them out. I mean Obama has already given Google via it's YouTube site a no bid contract and control over public property with the government videos being hosted there and being locked by YouTube's terms of service instead of common law and the idea that government produced works are owned by the people and free to the people (let's hope that "lobbying" will get some of the public's rights back).
Yes, I don't expect anything to happen to Google at all. Lip service will be played but not much more then that. There won't be a trial (mainly because I don't believe there has been any harm) or anything of the sort because the administration owes Google too much. The change we can believe in is more or less not throwing their supporters under the bus like many other politicians do when it get's ugly surrounding them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why must he do without or leave? I mean the cornerstone of democracy, even in republics like America, is that if you disagree with something, you can speak out against it and attempt to sway enough support to get it fixed or changed.
It would seem that the options you are allowing only mirror those in a dictatorship or some place where free speech has been displaced by public loyalty and pledged allegiance. It that really the world you wish to have?
I wouldn't count Public radio as above the rest. I listen to it quite often and it's riddled with opinionated reporting and biased approaches that more or less pushed agendas. Public television is much in the same light with it's programing too (and yes, I watch a considerable amount of that too). Of course this has been no secrete to many people. It seems the only ones in the dark are the ones already leaning towards it's biases.
I'm not going to disagree with your statement but I must say that it leaves the impression that what you mentioned isn't applicable to the main stream journalism.
I hope this isn't your view too. I mean the main stream media has more then a few times ignored the facts in support of whatever goal it had in mind. Just look at CNN and their support for liberals, Fox News and their support for conservatives, MSNBC and their attacks on conservatives (for ratings from the likes of the idiot Olberman), the LA times, NY post, Wall Street Journal and so on and so on. It may not be "all the time" but it defiantly exists contrary to the claims of unbiased journalistic integrity and reporting. Even the AP was caught pushing doctored photos of war scenes and so on. I guess the biggest difference is that it's harder to spot and they aren't as copious and belligerent about it.
A lot of the "up in arms" is little more then a goading to the people who claimed stuff Bush did was the worst thing since they found out the moon wasn't really made of green cheese. It's sort of an "if it was so bad, then why is your guy doing it" thing. It really isn't a double standard as much as it is forcing pretentious asses to admit they might have been wrong or that their guy was no different. It's sort of like the never does anything wrong goody two shoes who always has something to say about your life or something getting popped for doing something they just got done lecturing you on not doing and then bringing that fact up to them.
G.W, didn't need to rely on Nixon or Johnson. He got away with what a lot happened because of incompetence leading to technical problems. This is especially true with the missing emails. The white house supposedly archived the PST files containing the emails because the firm that convinced them switching to Exchange was going to be more productive couldn't extract the emails and sort them and they couldn't get the email archive on line. Something like three years past with nothing but nightly backups of PST files for email retention and the email retention system once working was totally indelicate for the purpose of retrieving the previous emails.
What ended up happening is that each days PST file had to be opened and searched and often restored from backup for any information needed for each computer that might have been used with the accounts. Then some of the tapes came up missing and bla bla bla, we have what we have right now. Now this change over was actually commisioned under Clinton because the old email system was outgrown and being patched together but it was clear that it wouldn't last. If they switched to something like a Sendmail or Postfix Email server the email would have been on index-able plain text files that could easily have been rolled into a simple relational database capable of filling in the retention needs. Instead, a propriatary format was used and we have what we see today.
You have little idea about the government or how it works, don't you.
A representative is responsible to his office he holds, the people control electing him in or electing others in and his office is over the people as well as everything that effects the people. It doesn't make a prince or a king when a representative, be it a congressman, the president, the local governor or whatever acts independent of the people. It's precisely why the form of government is the way it is. If you don't like that, then say so but don't exaggerate and call them something they are not just because you are confused. And if you want to change it, either get a constitutional amendment going or start a revolt and install your own government.
The parent explained things pretty accurately and your inability to accept that is your problem, not a problem with the system or the op. The system has been in place for over 220 years in this country and your just now objecting to it.
You do realize that Treason is a specific legal terms and requires specific actions to have taken place with the witness of at least two people right?
You can't prosecute anyone in the administration for treason relating to acts of the administration. And you can't change the law without changing the constitution to have the legal term treason be applied more places or prosecuted easier. It's in the damn constitution for a reason, it's because however catastrophic an administration or government's official can be, you can always call it treason to some extent. This is the reason why treason was specifically limited to levying war against the US or the States in the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort and requires testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Simply running the country into the ground is no where near treason.
OMG, I am convinced that you are a complete moron. No one, Let me repeat that so your Clear, NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE blamed FRD for the great depression. No one at all, Not I, Not historians, no one.
The quote by FDR was where he knowingly states that the social programs that he later enacts are unconstitutional and out of the reach of the federal government. Two years after saying this, programs he supported and worked to implement were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and he said "so, make me stop" knowing that he controlled the executive branch of government and the courts have no power whatsoever at all to do anything outside or making a ruling to stop him. He then started stacking the courts and Chief Justice Marshal expanded the role of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown. This is basic high school civics history, did they stop teaching that when you went through public education?
Perhaps it would do you some good to start watching Fox News or something.
BTW, this expansion of the interstate commerce clause is specifically what they federal government used to make drugs illegal. You mentioned in another post that you didn't agree with that and it is precisely the straying away from the constitution that has allowed the federal government to grab power it doesn't otherwise have and make arbitrary laws it has no business making.
Are you a fucking moron?
The courts look at what James Madison says to determine what the constitution says. The federalist papers and notes surrounding the creation and adoption of the constitution is the primary tool they use in their interpretations. They also use existing laws of the time and definitions of words as they were used during the time of the writing of the constitution. The DC gun ban case draws on almost all of these is you care to educate yourself.
As for the 16th amendment allowing tax based on income, you need to quit putting words in other people's mouths. Despite the fact that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified properly and the courts said that it has since then came into "compliance", I never said taxation was unconstitutional. No conservative that I know of thinks of that as some core belief either. And yes, I know quite a few conservatives. But if you would have read my post, you would have known that I wasn't even talking about the constitutionality of taxes or the 16th amendment. I was talking about your notion that it gives the government the right to enter into unconstitutional social program which is flat out false.
And your notion of what the courts say is wrong too. To date, no one has been able to show standing on the constitutionality of welfare. The General welfare clause in the constitution doesn't mean what you think it does and if anyone can show harm enough that the courts will consider the case, the courts will look at what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Presidents John Adams, George Washington, Franklin Pierce, Grover Cleveland, and FDR said in connection with it to make their opinion. You simply don't know how the courts decide these matters, your an uneducated fool. A court case that explicitly shows this is Marbury v. Madison and you should get familiar with it. It's the first US supreme court case that shows the court has a right of Judicial review and in doing so, it explicitly references Alexander Hamilton and the intentions of the framers of the constitution in interpreting the constitution.
Lol.. Name me some creditable sources that says Josephus was a forgery. It doesn't matter if the New Testament was written after Jesus' death, it's a record that existed long before Ann Rand. Or was your actually wanting proof that Jesus was a live person? There isn't much disputing that outside of people like you who think that it isn't possible if you can't see. Your also making shit up because the "guys", not guy, who claims to have found his family tomb was using it to disprove Jesus' devine rights. It seems that your flat out denying anything about him despite ample evidence and plenty of people who are convinced of the historical records of at least a person named Jesus. It should also be noted that Jesus isn't a real name, it's a transliteration of a hebrew word that the greeks didn't have a version of.
No, I addressed your point sufficiently before the 30% remark. I'm making a big deal out of it because you attempted to make a statement based around your opinion when you couldn't even get something as verifiable as an unemployment rate correct. You actually brought up the wrong numbers acting like you were right while attempting to chastise someone else for what you perceived as being wrong. The only reason the 30% is important is because it show how fucking imperfect you are despite your best efforts to pretend otherwise and hold others to higher standards. If you want to claim I don't or didn't have a case, then go back and address what I said about your premise. It doesn't focus on some arbitrary number you pulled out of your ass for "effect". I strongly believe you have a comprehension problem.
Why do you make shit up? Especially when it is easily verified by the very same medium that you are using to post your shit with? House bill HR2975 was introduced to the house on 10-02-2001, it was introduced to the senate as S.1510 on 10-04-2001. HR.3004 was introduced to the house on 10-03-2001. Both those bills went to comity (the normal process) and received the proper debate involving members of both parties. S.1510 was introduced in the senate by Sen Thomas A Daschle, a democrat. These bills evolved and came out of comity as HR 3162 which was reintroduced in the house on 10-23-2001, went for a vote after a discussion on 10-24 in the house and 10-25 in the senate and signed into law by the president on 10-26. The bill was always public knowledge, it was made in congress where it is supposed to be and not off site somewhere in a back room, and it was known about for 20 some days with open discussion and public record before the votes were made. It was also supported by 98% of the senate and the majority of the house whi
Lol.. Actually, if you would have paid attention to any of the quotes I provided, you would know that you're flat out wrong here. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and many others including Roosevelt who stacked the courts and caused a constitutional crisis in order to get unconstitutional laws upheld have publicly stated that Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930" just before causing this crisis.
In fact, Jefferson and Hamilton specifically addressed the general welfare clause and specifically stated that your wrong. This was done when attempting to explain what the constitution means and encourage it's adoption. Anyone claiming it does something specifically with welfare is just flat out wrong. And no, it cannot be interpreted any other way.
As for the 16th amendment, you don't know what your talking about. The apportionment means that each state gets a number appropriate to its population. When the 16th was made, the taxes assigned to a state was uniform and apportionment to the state which put differing geographical areas and economy structures at a disadvantage. The 16th doesn't authorize social programs, it simply removed this direct apportionment from the requirement of capitation. Here is a record of the debate surrounding the creation of the 16th amendment. Of course you can read the entire congressional record surrounding it and probably find a few more. But you cannot just twist things to mean anything you want. Everything in the constitution has a specific purpose and meaning and was explained by the people who supported it or apposed it. I can't take a contract I have with you and jack the prices or the amounts you owe me up arbitrarily because times have changed and more people around me support the new values. We would be bound by the original interpretation and meaning of the contract regardless of who wanted to ignore or change what.
You think? I think it is happening right now. Many people, and I mean many people who claimed to be democrats are getting fed up with the take from me because someone else can't manage their affairs properly. I know of two die hard democrats in local government who are thinking of changing parties right now because of the mortgage bailout bullshit. And no, I'm not wrong on what they have a right to do, it's a matter of principle not petty excuses to why your not capable of supporting yourself.
Don't put word in my mouth. I never said there wasn't a justification for taxes and I never said there wasn't a justification for the government spending the money collected through taxes. I said justify how you have rights over me, justify how you get the idea that you failing to do what you think is important gives you the right to take from me or anyone else to do it. As for the government being legitimate, when they become illegitimate, you see it change hands. As for the fantasy land, it must be in your head because you have assumes things I never said and are acting as if it's my personal world view or something. You need to pay attention, you probably wouldn't be unemployed right now if you did that a little better.
No, I didn't say the government didn't have the right to take my money and give it to others, I said you didn't have the right, through government or not to take my money. In other words, you seem to be imposing yourself over others who have achived more then you have. If the state government wants to take some money and help people with a hand up, I don't care. But when those people assume a right to a hand out, it becomes a problem. The federal government has not place in welfare at all. You still haven't justified your statement, what make you think you have the right to my money over me? It's a simple question and requires a simple answer and it pertains to a statement you specifically made.
Yes, they are. They send people with guns to take your freedom away, when you resist, they shoot you. I don't know how much clearer then that it can be. That's exactly how I put it before. BTW, taxation for needed expenditures is different then taxation because you have a right to my money. As force enforcing taxation, evict them from the country if they don't want to pay, but don't make the taxes excessive because of unconstitutional programs and people who think they have a right to the liberties I
You mean like the new testament in the Bible? The writings of Josephus or the discovery of his family tomb or what? I mean there isn't much question that someone named Jesus existed and all you have to do is read the bible to see what people claimed he said and taught.
Ahh, I see your not going for debate and instead attempting to attack people with inciting statements. Your mental prowels must amaze yourself.
You having a problem following a conversation? No one said it was.
Yes, 25%, the problem wasn't with the number it was with your exaggeration. When you present false facts to back your opinions up, your end up believing in wrong and incorrect ideas.
Actually, that's a lie. There would be places you could move into but they wouldn't be to your liking. Moving in with a friend or family member is one option. Taking the welfare option is another. Still, in most cities, there are homeless shelters and temporary housing specifically designed for that situation. I don't particularly care if you had to move. or not.
It sounds like they could benefit from you moving in and taking their lawnmower around and providing extra cash for the family. If you mean that they wouldn't have you, then I suggest you work on your people skills a little and rebuild whatever bridges with them you burned. Being a small house doesn't matter, you don't have to be comfortable, just living within your means.
Totally irrelevant. Your entire problem seems to be manufactures in your mind, you can't do something because you don't want to not because you can't. Even with unemployment, there are a number of things you could do to lessen the costs of living.
Please explain this point within the context that I provided. If you can't understand that simple difference between off budget emergency spending and entitlement programs, then you really need to shut the hell up about the government until such time as you actually learn something.
Actually, no, the patriot act received a full schedule of debate on both floors of congress and was supported by members from both sides of the isle just like members of both sides apposed it. And no, your completely wrong about the "
Obviously it wasn't or we wouldn't be discussing it. You don't have a right to take from me through government or not.
Government's have been destroyed and the legitimacy removed because of excessive taxation and illegitimate used of the tax money. You said you right to existence is more important them my right to keep what I worked for. You need to justify that and you need to do it in a way that doesn't involve an abusive government passing laws. The laws were passed for a reason, not because all government's have a default function. Without justification, it is no different then the armed robbery that happens on the street- because you wanted something someone else worked for.
Actually, it isn't an exercise in futility. In the 90's we got some pretty decent welfare reform. But you should note that I have said nothing about despising the welfare roles, nor have I said anything about wanting to over turn them. I simply asked you to justify why you think you have rights that trump mine. You are the one that said "my right to life, health, and pursuit of happiness trumps your right to keep all your money" aren't you? What if I just stopped making money that you can take? Oh, wait, we end up in the same situation we see ourselves in today.
So what makes your right or perceived right more important then mine or the guy who decides to rob someone? In both scenarios, we are being held at gun point in order to force us to surrender our money. If we don't do it voluntarily, the government will send people with guns and they might even take your life or freedoms away.
That's what's wrong with modern conservatives. Instead of trying to streamline existing programs they just want to throw everything out. A lot of people are for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency but that doesn't mean they want to scrap social programs. If conservatives don't figure out how to successfully run goverment instead of trying to drown it in a bathtub they will become even more irrelevant than they are now.
As you completely missed my point in my post, I can see you have completely missed a few key things with this portion of your statement. First of all, not all conservatives think alike. Second, the argument to get rid of the programs aren't because they aren't needed, it's because the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to provide them. The states may depending on their own constitutions and laws but the federal government doesn't. The constitution is after all, the document creating the structure of the federal government and is the covenant between the people and the powers they granted the government and prohibited the government from taking. The constitution is the very fabric that provides the legitimacy of the federal government. Streamlining a program that is unconstitutional and goes against the very intentions of the founding fathers when setting this country up is not an option.
"The p
It's difficult to take you seriously when you can't even grasp the context of the statement. The character, fictional or not (and there is a good bit of evidence suggesting Jesus wasn't fictional without even bothering to get into the miracles and son of god thing), has been around and availible for more then two centuries. Ayn Rand has been around for a while too, not quite as long but a while. And the context is that of personal charity verses a faceless bureaucracy presumably to make you feel good without getting your hands dirty. It's really no different then eating spinach as inspired by a fictional character in a cartoon as part of a healthy diet to grow big and strong. If thee association to a fictional character or fictional feats a character supposedly did negates everything associated with them, then your post is meaningless too because you assume your more intelligent then you are thereby creating a fictional environment.
Actually, no. He said attractive to the lazy and incompetent not that government or everyone working for it was lazy and incompetent. That means come not all government employees are lazy or incompetent. It mean some not all government organizations are run in a lazy or incompetent fashion.
And no, he didn't gloss over the fact that no one donates. That's inborn into the problem when some faceless bureaucracy takes care of it. Why would anyone personally donate when money is taken from them by force and used as charity. Without government involvement and faceless bureaucracies, people would not have that escape and be forced to deal with the problems of society. As it is now, the people who are greedy just escape guilt free because the "government takes care of them".
As for the 30% unemployment, you seriously means to inject a fictional number or premise into your argument when you just got done misconstruing the Jesus reference and making an ass of yourself? You must think that it's Ok as long as you do it right? Maybe if you label it "conservative" first, you think you can get by with doing exactly what you scolded him for? Let me tell you, your shit stinks too. Your political bias has caused you to totally misconstrue two arguments, one of which was directly related to something you specifically posted. Should I say typical liberal BS and dismiss everything you say now? Labeling something doesn't make the points disappear, it doesn't make them irrelevant, and it doesn't make them wrong. The points themselves within the context they were made are the only things that determine their value against the facts and truth. Your opinion is not fact so your shouldn't be presenting opinion as fact.
Perhaps you should look at that as a life lesson and reevaluate how you treat other people. Money isn't everything you know, I lost a job back in the early 90's and I had to find 3 other people to move in just to pay the bills. I was part time even though I averaged 36 hours a week so I got no unemployment and no welfare without kids. One of the manufacturing plants relocated without notice and left twenty five percent of the town unemployed. We found land that people let us put large
Gee, my neighbor thought the same thing. He is now serving 5-10 for armed robbery. Tell me again where your self-centered-ness and greed is right or different?
Notice how it says on their behalf and not bidding their will?
That's the entire idea behind a republic. The representative acts for the benefit of the people, the state, or whatever the represent, not at the discretion of the people or the will of the people. But we have other problems like the constitutional limits on the federal government and so on. I can go into the long ass speech about how we have ignored those limes forever but instead, I will just state that I bet you don't even understand the purpose of the federal government.
The federal government in the US was never intended to work for the people. It was never intended to be "democratic". It's entire intent was to act as the head of state for the states when dealing with foreign matters. It's role is very explicitly spelled out in the constitution and limits were places on it and the states by the constitution. The senators were originally appointed by the states, the president is/or supposed to be more or less the governor of governors. The only say the people was supposed to have was the representatives. The 17th amendment came along after the civil war in an attempt to stop states from appointing hostile senators and because hostilities within the states made it difficult to select senators. It moved the selection of senators from the state legislator to a popular election by the people but it did not change the role of the senate which was to represent the state.
People nowadays either through their lack of knowledge about US history, failure to actually read the constitution, or because of some romantic nothing implanted by the powers to be, seem to think the role of the federal government is way more then it was ever intended to be. The comment that started this part of the thread is certainly confused about it. In fact, I think he slept through his entire government an civics classes in high school. Poverty, unemployment, pollution, are all items that should be handled by the states. The tenth amendment is there for a reason. The framers of the constitution and this county didn't just get bored and decide to add arbitrary text to it for no apparent reason.
The only democracy we have on the federal lever is in how we elect our representatives and senators. The senators are obligated to represent the state (as originally intended) and the representative are obliged to the people. It's the balance of "power" in how the states are governed within the union. Again, the federal government is supposed to govern the union of the states, not the people.
Here in the US, no one has lost their home because of a medical bill either. They lost their homes because they didn't pay for insurance and instead spent the money elsewhere. Almost everyone who can afford a home to lose can afford insurance. When the subject of government health comes up, I always see people taking their boats to the lake or riding their 4 wheelers or driving around in their $5.00 a gallon for every 9 miles of travel diesel truck they drive like a sports car saying it's a great thing. It's obvious they think that they won't have to pay for it with higher taxes and think they can just focus on more meaningless toys. Most of the people who "lose" their homes, are people who could have afforded insurance and wouldn't not have lost them if they actually paid it instead of squandering the money somewhere else. And yes, even in Spain, your paying for it by paying increased taxes one your income, products and services, and almost everything else. It's not like it is free even though costs controls might make it cheaper.
That's simply false.
Of they aren't obligated to pay more taxes, then they simply don't owe more money. The lack of them owing does not mean that someone who does funds anything. I'm pretty sure I make more then you do and pay more taxes then you do (at least at one point in time), does that mean I'm funding you?
That's actually only state tax they have dodged. For anyone not living in Washington or Nevada, it doesn't effect them. MS will still have to pay it's federal corporate taxes. There 48 other states that no one would be effected by whatsoever at all because of that.
Also, the current tax laws say your supposed to pay the least amount your legally obligated to. If your not legally obligated to pay something, that doesn't mean others are subsidizing it. When I deduct my Mortgage interest, it doesn't mean your mandatef to fund my home purchase.
You do realize that the white house wasn't the "White House" during the war of 1812 right?
It got that name because of the whitewash done after you burnt it up to hide the smoke damage. It also wasn't famous or precious until after that. we owe it all to your ancestors.
Hey idiot, I made the arguemnt and I made the facts of the argument. I'm not ignoring anything, I created the scenario so it follows my rules. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad or something but that's your problem not mine. The scenario I set up is typical in my area and most of the areas that I have lived in. If you don't like it, get over it, It is what many people do every damn day. You need to let go of the fallacy that the world is how you think it is because it is all you have ever experienced.
It doesn't take an advanced degree in physics to know that public transit sucks or is totally nonexistent in most areas. It's 5 miles from my house before I can even get a cab, we have no public transit outside of that to speak of. There is a shuttle bus that takes people from a parking lot a few blocks away to down town because there isn't enough parking but that's about it. In fact, I would bet that most cities in the US don't have effective public transit system and you need to get away from home and see what the fuck is really out there.
anyways, for the math, from where I live, it's roughly 40 miles to the next big city that has all the decent paying jobs. You can't ride a bike on the freeway, it's illegal so you have to take the longer routes with the stop lights and so on. If your working here, you either have one of the few good paying jobs or your working at restaurants. You have to drive 30-40 miles one way to get the good paying jobs outside that. This isn't unusual either, I know many people in California that commute 100 miles round trip for work with a decent pay. And yes, California does have public transportation, it just doesn't serve every one. In Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida, its the same damn way in many places. That's why the freeways are always clogged.
Now a 40 mile trip on a freeway will be about half the distance as one that has to go around it. I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. I apologize if I took some liberties with you intelligence. It won't happen again.
Generally, you have to show harm has happened intentionally or unintentionally. I can't speak about other jurisdictions because I'm not too familiar with laws outside the US.
However, inside the US, I'm not sure anyone can show harm that Google has caused. At best, all harm shown or implied are stretches of the imagination. Even if the potential is there, our legal system is set up in a way that you actually have to do something wrong in order to be punished for it. Otherwise the state could write speeding tickets to anyone who owns a car that can physically go over the posted speed limit at any given time. The potential generally isn't enough for action against that company/person, there has to be an action.
Even in states that have laws like the attractive nuisance doctrine which basically states that if something can be attractive to children who should but might not know any better, you need to take extra steps to protect against their injury. There has to be an act with injury or something that causes any punishment to be handed out. Examples of attractive nuisances might be swimming pools without fences and gates around them, heavy equipment parked where children can get access to it and not secured from starting or moving to where harm may happen to kids playing on it (IE, fence it in and remove the keys, lower all hydraulic parts so gravity can't drop them on top of the kids), or a broken piece of playground equipment not secured from harming kids or simply marked with a sign they can't read. Open holes in fields that aren't fenced off from the public, dangerous or wild animals that can be approached by people and so on. The idea is that some kids can't read the warning signs and might be attracted to the danger without knowing it is there. I would say that the attractive nuisance is one of the most flexible types of laws out there but it still requires a specific action (harm) to happen before it can be enforced.
Any Smuck can, but entering the market does not mean you are providing something that people want or think they need. I had a great idea for pickles and sardine flavored Ice Cream (it's better then it sounds), how successful do you think I would be competing against Ben & Jerry's or Bordon brands?
There is the thing, entry to market doesn't mean success in that market. So don't confuse failure to succeed for a barrier to entry.
It shouldn't be about getting an ad campaign that is effective. The effectiveness is all up to the person running the campaign not the provider or media outlet. The only way I can see what your describing as being problematic is if Google charged disproportionately higher then similar services or refused to provide service or service at similar costs as your competitors.
The feeling or insinuation that someone needs to use a specific service or product to be effective isn't/shouldn't be in itself enough to show damage. Otherwise adobe and Microsoft should have been held accountable long ago for the government's reliance on PDFs and word DOCs. And yes, there are alternatives now, but that wasn't always the case. But this idea hasn't come to passing because ultimately, it's the users independent choice that put those formats into the positions they are/where in and as long as neither stopped competition when they did become the default standard, it shouldn't matter much.
As for the government going after Google, it won't happen. It's pure lip service and here is why. Google's Chief Executive Eric Schmidt actively supported Obama's election and actually pounded the campaign trail for him. Many other Google execs and employees have done the same. In fact, it has led people to speculate that Google will have a wide variety of payback options and for some reason, I don't think President Obama is going to let anyone take them out. I mean Obama has already given Google via it's YouTube site a no bid contract and control over public property with the government videos being hosted there and being locked by YouTube's terms of service instead of common law and the idea that government produced works are owned by the people and free to the people (let's hope that "lobbying" will get some of the public's rights back).
Yes, I don't expect anything to happen to Google at all. Lip service will be played but not much more then that. There won't be a trial (mainly because I don't believe there has been any harm) or anything of the sort because the administration owes Google too much. The change we can believe in is more or less not throwing their supporters under the bus like many other politicians do when it get's ugly surrounding them.