He has also said that he would never take options off the table and wouldn't telegraph our reactions and responses. He said the current tell everyone before doing it and bragging about it afterwards gives the enemy too much information. So of course he wouldn't rule anything out because doing so would be ignoring that self imposed principle.
Now you be worried because he didn't allow himself to get painted into a corner and walk his other position back or you can just see it for what it is and not pretend to be scared.
Some people can be crammed into the back seat but the majority of police interaction doesn't require transportation of prisoners. When they do, you call in a van or SUV to pick up the suspect. Most of the paper work can be done from the cruiser so no need to have the cop return to the station for booking the prisoner.
You are the one bringing up no true conservative. However, that same claim- that trump is not a conservative is what is being made by the cruze, rubio, and never trump supporters. They even put a fair amount of evidence forward showing trump to be an opportunist democrat.
Do you even pay attention? Or do you grab onto preconceived notions whether there is a basis in reality or not and pile onto it with whatever you want to be true?
I'll give you that just to avoid moving the goal posts into a side topic, those calling themselves conservative have defined themselves. Again, given what you know, what makes you think trump supporters fall into that group of people?
What makes you think that voting for trump makes anyone conservative? That's one of the key components in the never trump camp- that trump is a liberal in disguise.
The best interest of society is a moving target with segments that might contradict each other in the process. But that is neither here nor there because the original premise was that someone knows for someone else who doesn't know for themselves. It is a fallacy that predicates itself on one person being smarter than the other and goes against the very grains of freedom to which you can be as free as someone else wants you to be. And yes, the freedom to fail is important because when we fail, we also learn.
Even if someone else does know what is my best interest, it shouldn't be imposed on people.
We are still at the problem of what is the best interest of society. You are still falling back to opinion - your opinion to be exact - and a lot of other people might have a lot of other opinions.
You are correct in as a percentage of federal receipts, corporate income taxes are lower but you really need to combine the corporate income and payroll taxes to get a real picture. This is because businesses pay both.
However, by profit I wasn't necessarily speaking of corporate income taxes. Ideally profits are disbursed to shareholders unless reinvested to expand or maintain the business. These dividends disbursed is where the taxing should be as it is income to the shareholders. I'm not against forgoing corporate income taxes and just taxing dividends. I'm also not against an exit tax for dividends disbursed to foreign persons not paying or filing income taxes in the U.S..
I don't think we are in disagreement. Just not talking the same language or terms it would seem.
What about them? Their situation is saddening but is not my problem. Most likely the problem is with their local governments making jobs hard to come by through either being hostile to industry via zoning or taxes or labor costs.
There is even a good possibly that their unemployment is largely their own fault. I remember a few weeks ago in the article about giving notice to quit. I talked to several people who said they wouldn't give notice because employers don't give notice when they fire you. I couldn't get them to understand that it wasn't the current employee but future employers they needed to impress. They even said i was crazy because they were unemployed for so long. I felt sorry for them because if someone ever invented a clue bat and started beating sense into people, they would likely be hospitalized before it did any good.
Profits need to be taxed. Money in and of itself doesn't. I don't think you understand how things work though.
As for $600 a week, that is barely livable in most places worth living in. I don't need to do the math because it doesn't matter that hourly wages when you artificially cap the weekly earnings. You can make $100 an hour and it doesn't little if you can only work 2hours a week.
As for taking what you think is yours. You are talking about taxing people to pay you. You are not trading time or effort for monetary returns, you are taking from people you have no relationship with in order to finance laziness. This is not a work or starve situation it is a legalized theft situation and whenever it is done, it eventually it happens to you. It isn't like we don't have a history around the world of the shit happening and turning into hell holes.
I'm not sure what supporting trump has to do with anything either. To be honest, he scares me but so does Hillary so any support is either the rare occasions he is right or as the least of two evils. Either way, it has nothing to do with how you are wrong.
I don't know what scares me the most. The appearance of so much thought you have put into this and still have the same conclusion or the fact that you seem old enough to vote.
$600 a week is peanuts and you seem to have no qualms about taking from others to promote this laziness. Money needs to be in the commodity and derivative markets and there is no logical reason not to have it in stocks.
No observer has been denied. What happened is that a state changed it's voting laws and the justice department said they couldn't. The state took them to court and it was ruled that so much has changed that the feds have to justify preemptive interaction. They have not done so either by inaction or inability to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination that would meet the legal definition.
What this means is that they can send only voluntary observers and court appointed observers. The voluntary observers are fed employees who can be kicked out. The court ordered observers have full reign of the polling operations. What the article is talking about is that so far, the justice department has only been able to meet the legal requirements for court ordered observers in five states to date.
No observer has been denied access to anything yet. And it certainly hasn't been denied based on any political party affiliation or political party's safe areas.
Perhaps you are a moron and didn't understand what was said. Perhaps you do and want to ignore it to fan flames that shouldn't be.
Anyways, a loophole means specifically that something is not illegal. It doesn't matter what the spirit of the law is (unless congress expressly writes it into the law in which case the leeway is less), if it isn't illegal via a loophole then it is unconstitutional to pretend it is.
Now specifically show me where I am wrong. You cannot which is why your post is vague. But in case you did not understand my comment on the loophole being ok in one instance and unconstitutional in another, I will explain it a bit. The constitution prohibits the government from prosecution of a crime that isn't a crime. You have a right of habeas corpus, due process, to face your accusers, and a right to be free of post fact laws. If the legislature made it illegal to spit on the walkway on Sunday but spelled out a sidewalk, then you being prosecuted for spitting on a dirt path in the middle of the woods would violate your constitutional rights. But if they intended to stop spitting on finished walkways otherwise known as sidewalks but used the term walkway instead, you not being prosecuted is not a violation of your constitutional rights because you face no accusations or due process or penalties.
So one is enforcing a law that isn't actually a law which is unconstitutional and the other is failing to enforce a law that actually is a law which is constitutional (outside the duty for the executive to aee that all laws are faithfully executed).
I can understand that. Your employer may also at some time lobby congress to ensure that only software and software services made primarily in the U.S. and by companies who don't shelter foreign income from U.S. taxes get priority in government contracts. In that case, you might support their position.
It is never binary and never a situation where every stance is agreeable or disagreeable based off a single other stance.
It doesn't work that way. The enemy has to be defined already and the act has to be directly connected. Otherwise you would see treason convictions instead of murder or fraud or whatever. We have had very few treason convictions and very few legal accusations of it in our history.
I read what you said, how does that reconcile with the constitutional requirements for treason in the context of the person you were replying to?
The constitution is different from laws. It sets the power the government has and expressly is prohibited from. The spirit applies only to which the names and conventions may be different. For instance a laptop or phone call is papers and effects for the purposes of searching.
As for your speeding example, i don't disagree. The op however was talking about loopholes which is somewhat opposite of your direction which is why I included it. Of course remaining free when the letter of law conflicts with the spirit would pass constitutional muster. But the other way wouldn't.
It depends on what they are being bribed to do. Just because it benefits someone else doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit me or that whatever is being done is overall bad for the country. Often it doesn't even matter to me so what do I care if someone else gets their way.
Of course I'm thinking bribed is used in the liberal sense where donations and such count (considering the topic)
Often the employee will endorse the same things their boss does. This is because people are not idiots and know that if the company is doing well, their jobs are safe and there is a better chance at pay raises and such. This isn't always the case but easily can be.
The AC is ignorant and you may be too. First, regardless of any definition of treason anywhere, in the USA it can only be levying war against the United States , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort and you can only convict someone for treason if you have two witnesses to the act or a confession in open court. Even if you have bank records and possession indicating guilt, without any of that you cannot constitutionally convict someone for treason.
But it gets worse. If the law doesn't specifically make it illegal, regardless of any intent, it must therefore be legal. We are a free society who's freedom are limited only by laws already in place restricting that freedom. The constitution prohibits making things illegal after the fact which is what enforcement of the spirit of a law when it doesn't specifically outlaw an act would be.
In short, you could not make a law like that unless you made constitutional amendments first.
Best interest. . There is the problem. You do not know what my best interest is. You might know what yours is or even what you want it to be but it may be completely different than mine.
And you will find that along the way, there will be people with completely different best interest than either of us or even others.
What makes you think that? Nothing with this setup and administration guide to comply with security standards hints to it. And if it did, it would easily be discovered but I'm not sure it matters seeing how this is primarily intended to be used by government contractors working for the government. The NSA technically already has access to it.
I've seen similar experiences. It is often cheaper to fix the older CNC equipment than to replace them by hundreds of thousands of dollars. - Even if it happens several times.
Of course once the machine itself starts breaking and costing money , replacing it might be more attractive. But if it is software or computer hardware related, it is a no brain'r to keep it chugging along instead of replacing them.
Slashdot Mirror
He has also said that he would never take options off the table and wouldn't telegraph our reactions and responses. He said the current tell everyone before doing it and bragging about it afterwards gives the enemy too much information. So of course he wouldn't rule anything out because doing so would be ignoring that self imposed principle.
Now you be worried because he didn't allow himself to get painted into a corner and walk his other position back or you can just see it for what it is and not pretend to be scared.
You have a paddy wagon.
Some people can be crammed into the back seat but the majority of police interaction doesn't require transportation of prisoners. When they do, you call in a van or SUV to pick up the suspect. Most of the paper work can be done from the cruiser so no need to have the cop return to the station for booking the prisoner.
You are the one bringing up no true conservative. However, that same claim- that trump is not a conservative is what is being made by the cruze, rubio, and never trump supporters. They even put a fair amount of evidence forward showing trump to be an opportunist democrat.
Do you even pay attention? Or do you grab onto preconceived notions whether there is a basis in reality or not and pile onto it with whatever you want to be true?
I'll give you that just to avoid moving the goal posts into a side topic, those calling themselves conservative have defined themselves. Again, given what you know, what makes you think trump supporters fall into that group of people?
What makes you think that voting for trump makes anyone conservative? That's one of the key components in the never trump camp- that trump is a liberal in disguise.
The best interest of society is a moving target with segments that might contradict each other in the process. But that is neither here nor there because the original premise was that someone knows for someone else who doesn't know for themselves. It is a fallacy that predicates itself on one person being smarter than the other and goes against the very grains of freedom to which you can be as free as someone else wants you to be. And yes, the freedom to fail is important because when we fail, we also learn.
Even if someone else does know what is my best interest, it shouldn't be imposed on people.
We are still at the problem of what is the best interest of society. You are still falling back to opinion - your opinion to be exact - and a lot of other people might have a lot of other opinions.
I'm not sure what makes you think that. I doubt it has a basis in reality.
You are correct in as a percentage of federal receipts, corporate income taxes are lower but you really need to combine the corporate income and payroll taxes to get a real picture. This is because businesses pay both.
However, by profit I wasn't necessarily speaking of corporate income taxes. Ideally profits are disbursed to shareholders unless reinvested to expand or maintain the business. These dividends disbursed is where the taxing should be as it is income to the shareholders. I'm not against forgoing corporate income taxes and just taxing dividends. I'm also not against an exit tax for dividends disbursed to foreign persons not paying or filing income taxes in the U.S..
I don't think we are in disagreement. Just not talking the same language or terms it would seem.
What about them? Their situation is saddening but is not my problem. Most likely the problem is with their local governments making jobs hard to come by through either being hostile to industry via zoning or taxes or labor costs.
There is even a good possibly that their unemployment is largely their own fault. I remember a few weeks ago in the article about giving notice to quit. I talked to several people who said they wouldn't give notice because employers don't give notice when they fire you. I couldn't get them to understand that it wasn't the current employee but future employers they needed to impress. They even said i was crazy because they were unemployed for so long. I felt sorry for them because if someone ever invented a clue bat and started beating sense into people, they would likely be hospitalized before it did any good.
Profits need to be taxed. Money in and of itself doesn't. I don't think you understand how things work though.
As for $600 a week, that is barely livable in most places worth living in. I don't need to do the math because it doesn't matter that hourly wages when you artificially cap the weekly earnings. You can make $100 an hour and it doesn't little if you can only work 2hours a week.
As for taking what you think is yours. You are talking about taxing people to pay you. You are not trading time or effort for monetary returns, you are taking from people you have no relationship with in order to finance laziness. This is not a work or starve situation it is a legalized theft situation and whenever it is done, it eventually it happens to you. It isn't like we don't have a history around the world of the shit happening and turning into hell holes.
I'm not sure what supporting trump has to do with anything either. To be honest, he scares me but so does Hillary so any support is either the rare occasions he is right or as the least of two evils. Either way, it has nothing to do with how you are wrong.
I don't know what scares me the most. The appearance of so much thought you have put into this and still have the same conclusion or the fact that you seem old enough to vote.
$600 a week is peanuts and you seem to have no qualms about taking from others to promote this laziness. Money needs to be in the commodity and derivative markets and there is no logical reason not to have it in stocks.
They would have to pay twice as much to do so. And then I would probably work two and a half full time jobs.
Or are you going to mandate i cannot work more than one job? I see that as an immediate disqualification.
Are we spending 3 trillion a year on these social programs?
I don't think it matters with the existing spending. It is still more.
No observer has been denied. What happened is that a state changed it's voting laws and the justice department said they couldn't. The state took them to court and it was ruled that so much has changed that the feds have to justify preemptive interaction. They have not done so either by inaction or inability to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination that would meet the legal definition.
What this means is that they can send only voluntary observers and court appointed observers. The voluntary observers are fed employees who can be kicked out. The court ordered observers have full reign of the polling operations. What the article is talking about is that so far, the justice department has only been able to meet the legal requirements for court ordered observers in five states to date.
No observer has been denied access to anything yet. And it certainly hasn't been denied based on any political party affiliation or political party's safe areas.
Perhaps you are a moron and didn't understand what was said. Perhaps you do and want to ignore it to fan flames that shouldn't be.
Anyways, a loophole means specifically that something is not illegal. It doesn't matter what the spirit of the law is (unless congress expressly writes it into the law in which case the leeway is less), if it isn't illegal via a loophole then it is unconstitutional to pretend it is.
Now specifically show me where I am wrong. You cannot which is why your post is vague. But in case you did not understand my comment on the loophole being ok in one instance and unconstitutional in another, I will explain it a bit. The constitution prohibits the government from prosecution of a crime that isn't a crime. You have a right of habeas corpus, due process, to face your accusers, and a right to be free of post fact laws. If the legislature made it illegal to spit on the walkway on Sunday but spelled out a sidewalk, then you being prosecuted for spitting on a dirt path in the middle of the woods would violate your constitutional rights. But if they intended to stop spitting on finished walkways otherwise known as sidewalks but used the term walkway instead, you not being prosecuted is not a violation of your constitutional rights because you face no accusations or due process or penalties.
So one is enforcing a law that isn't actually a law which is unconstitutional and the other is failing to enforce a law that actually is a law which is constitutional (outside the duty for the executive to aee that all laws are faithfully executed).
I can understand that. Your employer may also at some time lobby congress to ensure that only software and software services made primarily in the U.S. and by companies who don't shelter foreign income from U.S. taxes get priority in government contracts. In that case, you might support their position.
It is never binary and never a situation where every stance is agreeable or disagreeable based off a single other stance.
It doesn't work that way. The enemy has to be defined already and the act has to be directly connected. Otherwise you would see treason convictions instead of murder or fraud or whatever. We have had very few treason convictions and very few legal accusations of it in our history.
I read what you said, how does that reconcile with the constitutional requirements for treason in the context of the person you were replying to?
The constitution is different from laws. It sets the power the government has and expressly is prohibited from. The spirit applies only to which the names and conventions may be different. For instance a laptop or phone call is papers and effects for the purposes of searching.
As for your speeding example, i don't disagree. The op however was talking about loopholes which is somewhat opposite of your direction which is why I included it. Of course remaining free when the letter of law conflicts with the spirit would pass constitutional muster. But the other way wouldn't.
It depends on what they are being bribed to do. Just because it benefits someone else doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit me or that whatever is being done is overall bad for the country. Often it doesn't even matter to me so what do I care if someone else gets their way.
Of course I'm thinking bribed is used in the liberal sense where donations and such count (considering the topic)
Often the employee will endorse the same things their boss does. This is because people are not idiots and know that if the company is doing well, their jobs are safe and there is a better chance at pay raises and such. This isn't always the case but easily can be.
The AC is ignorant and you may be too. First, regardless of any definition of treason anywhere, in the USA it can only be levying war against the United States , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort and you can only convict someone for treason if you have two witnesses to the act or a confession in open court. Even if you have bank records and possession indicating guilt, without any of that you cannot constitutionally convict someone for treason.
But it gets worse. If the law doesn't specifically make it illegal, regardless of any intent, it must therefore be legal. We are a free society who's freedom are limited only by laws already in place restricting that freedom. The constitution prohibits making things illegal after the fact which is what enforcement of the spirit of a law when it doesn't specifically outlaw an act would be.
In short, you could not make a law like that unless you made constitutional amendments first.
Best interest. . There is the problem. You do not know what my best interest is. You might know what yours is or even what you want it to be but it may be completely different than mine.
And you will find that along the way, there will be people with completely different best interest than either of us or even others.
What makes you think that? Nothing with this setup and administration guide to comply with security standards hints to it. And if it did, it would easily be discovered but I'm not sure it matters seeing how this is primarily intended to be used by government contractors working for the government. The NSA technically already has access to it.
I've seen similar experiences. It is often cheaper to fix the older CNC equipment than to replace them by hundreds of thousands of dollars. - Even if it happens several times.
Of course once the machine itself starts breaking and costing money , replacing it might be more attractive. But if it is software or computer hardware related, it is a no brain'r to keep it chugging along instead of replacing them.