Women serve in these positions, are you claiming a F-to-M soldier would somehow grow weaker than a trained female if they don't get their hormones; and this would suddenly happen after a single missed dose?
I'm against women and gays/trans/etc serving in the military as soldiers. On average they are simply not as physically capable in raw combat. They cost military resources to accommodate that could be directed toward goals that achieve victory and peace.
Save the social-justice identity-politics for the civilians. That shit gets soldiers killed.
I think you're a super douche for signing your posts. That being said, I almost always agree with you!
Cheers, AC
Captcha: discuss
Nothing "douche-y" about it.
I'm from an ancient age now long-past before there were personal computers or an internet that fomented casual disrespect and disregard for things said anonymously by oneself and others. I regard the trend as another small indication of the de-evolution of societal civilization.
Signing posts shows simple common courtesy and respect for one's own words and those of others I obviously thought enough of that I chose to communicate with in the first place. My principles and standards of civilized behavior have not lowered, society's has.
No idea why anyone would react negatively as you've done.
So what about all the Democrats who became Republicans after the Republican party introduced their "Southern Effort" to recruit segregationist lawmakers to the party after the Democrats passed the civil rights bill.
There was no "Southern Strategy". That's a propaganda lie that's been pushed for decades by Progressives to attempt to separate and distance themselves from a long and sordid past of racial discrimination, hatred, & bigotry, and blame it all on Republicans.
Hell, the Democratic Party kept and protected the seat of former KKK leader Robert Byrd (who voted against every single civil rights act for blacks & other minorities) as a Democratic US Senator until he died recently in 2010.
For a president to call a supreme court stacked with his own picked justices "his court" is a perfectly logical expression. To call the generals "my generals" is an expression of a delusional man hoping to impress his power upon the credulous and naive.
So you'd have us believe that calling supposedly unbiased and independent justices in **another freaking separate branch of government** "his court" because he did an end-run around separation of powers is okey-dokey, A-OK, but a POTUS you happen to disagree with is wrong to call the generals **directly under his freaking command as Commander In Chief** "his generals"!?
0_o
The actions of Wilson and Roosevelt in response to the political climate of their day...
You mean being Oath of Office/Constitution-violating racist and bigoted Progressive Democrats as history clearly shows they were?
On the other hand, all the talk about these sort of physiological differences are essentially strawmen when it comes to "any capacity" - there are plenty of army jobs that require something other than enduring shitty conditions for the long term, like if you operate radars at a nice coastal city or work on technology far behind the borders.
They all have to pass through boot camp and receive combat training, as there are these things called "paratroopers", "helicopters", "SCUBA equipped insertion teams like SEALs, and "airplanes" that mean the enemy can appear almost anywhere. The enemy may quite plausibly insert a commando team to take out the pleasant little coastal RADAR station you mention and that soldier may suddenly find himself holding an M4 carbine and defending his & his fellow-soldier's lives.
Being behind the "front lines" in no way means a soldier does not need the same combat abilities and skills as any front-line soldier, especially in modern times.
The military kills people and destroys things, Period.
That's their only purpose. It's primitive, brutal, and cares not for 'feelz'. This is organized tooth-and-claw, no-remorse, ruthless extermination. Adding touchy-feely social experiments will only get people unnecessarily killed and hurt.
Hey, if people want to add transgender therapies and surgeries as a VA benefit available after discharge, I'd have no objection.
But please, soldiers have far more than enough on their plates just remaining live soldiers in an armed conflict, let's not pile on anything more for them to worry about and adapt to we do not absolutely have to.
Even Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt never had the balls to refer to them as "my Generals".
A little history would be apropos, here.
FDR likely referred to the SCOTUS as "his court" after threatening to expand the number of justices and pack the court with "his justices" because the SCOTUS initially viewed provisions of Social Security as unconstitutional. At least the Republicans aren't talking about raising the number of SCOTUS justices and packing the bench to advance their agendas.
Oh, and just as an additional FYI, Woodrow Wilson racially-segregated the US military when it was not racially segregated at that time.
And both POTUS's sent ethnic Germans, Japanese, and more living in the US to camps during WW1 & WW2 and forced them to surrender all their property.
You can enjoy your wealth while you are alive. It's not "taken" from you until you are dead, at which point you won't need it.
But my family will need it, which is the reason why most people strive to be successful and create more wealth than just what they themselves need/want personally. Any wealth I did happen to accumulate I'd blow it all on whatever struck my fancy rather than allowing the government to confiscate it because I can't stop them when dead. Nobody lives their lives with the goal of advancing the State except those at the top of the State.
Yes, keep the govt that might enforce such rules weak. That will work. Totally. Hold my beer.
Yes, because prioritizing reducing/eliminating the ability to enforce laws is mandatory when reducing the power of government, It's really the only area where we can start to make cuts. Too bad we don't have the ability to selectively reduce some areas while leaving others untouched or even bolster them.
If I can't bequeath my wealth to my children or family why would I let you have it?
More to the point, why would you break your back and struggle to create a business and work hard enough to create any significant amount of wealth under those conditions in the first place? "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.
Quite true.
A functioning capitalist economy/society must have Rule of Law to make certain laws, contracts, etc etc are not broken or violated. There must be laws against predatory monopolistic actions and the must be enforced, and enforced equally.
Most of the laws to restrain such predatory monopolistic actions are already on the books. There is no lack of laws under which to prosecute such crimes, or prosecute anyone for almost anything, there are so many laws and regulations with the force of law on the books.
No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.
Well, you've proved you aren't, despite any schools you may have attended.
Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing.
As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.
Seriously, though get over your meme-centered life, and recognize that people do have problems with the operation of drones, and addressing them is going to lead to some restrictions.
Why? Because crying "freedom" over being an ass makes a fool out of you.
Yes, because making *another* law to make something that's already illegal...illegal...makes perfect sense./s
In the US there is no free market in the ISP space.
From: Rob Y. ( 110975 )
Not to mention that the nature of these anti-consumer practices (absent any laws to change it) would be mostly invisible to the consumer.
Change the laws/pass new laws directly addressing net neutrality specifically through Congress where there are elected representatives that can be held accountable directly. Handing it off to a political-appointee-run bureaucracy to write and implement sweeping regulations with the force of federal law (mostly to avoid that accountability in the first place) is asking for trouble.
So how do you suggest this specific problem be solved? OK so you are against govt regulation. So who is left to crack down on monopolistic practices?
Just because the FCC isn't in charge of the internet does not mean corporations/ISPs are suddenly immune from the law. Normal existing laws already cover most things. If DAs and prosecutors, etc would actually decide to do something, laws against fraud, racketeering, etc etc could be applied.
That's the heart of the problem right there: There are already laws on the books that could be applied here, but government is unwilling because they are corrupt. Handing the global internet to the FCC isn't going to make them any more willing to do the right thing. It just hands a major amount of power over the internet to an agency in a corrupt government.
I do care (I don't speak for the other guy), and I'm sure lots of other people in tech care too. But it doesn't matter: we have zero power now. Trump is President, and Pai is the FCC Director, and the GOP is in power in Congress, so there's nothing any of us can do at least until the 2018 elections, and even that's questionable as you'd need a really strong majority in Congress to pass a law overruling the FCC's leadership.
Look, I and most people I've talked to whose views are fairly-consistent with mine don't want ISPs doing shady crap regarding who gets what how fast any more than anyone else does. I (we) just don't think a federal bureaucracy is the go-to, best solution to making sure it doesn't happen.
I also don't want the federal government extending it's power ever-deeper into regulating the internet. Especially not by a commission whose head is politically appointed and makes & alters policies & regulations with each new administration and political-appointee heading it. Every government agency, dept., etc experiences 'mission creep'. They never give back expanded powers and scope once gained.
It's a situation of; "You don't want to see our guys with that much power, and we don't want to see your guys with that much power." How about instead of fighting about what the federal government should do to make sure ISPs don't play dirty, we find another means of accomplishing the same thing and avoid either side having the big stick?
I just don't want to allow the slightest possibility that permitting the government camel's-nose into the internet-tent might someday lead to US ISPs required to tie accounts to federal I.D. and other such chilling and oppressive possibilities we see occurring elsewhere.
Far too often people talk past each other. We share far more of the same goals than we differ on. Our principles are mostly the same, we just have different ideas of how to go about solving some problems, and what may constitute a problem.
No matter who might achieve political power, there will always be ~40% or more of the population that will never see things the other way. What are you going to do with them? You've got to live with them, otherwise we start talking about camps and ovens and other horrors, and nobody wants that.
Both sides need to stop trying so fscking hard to win at any cost, and start talking to and actually listening to the other side. Otherwise, Horror-Ville is the only way it ends.
Hypothesis: Government investigators want to talk to certain individuals about crimes they likely witnessed. To this end, they get a subpoena to get the identities of the probable witnesses, after which they will talk to them as part of the investigation. Note that this is not any sort of power creep, as the government has always had the power to subpoena information relevant to a criminal investigation.
Hypothesis: Government, for some strange reason, wants to eliminate or discredit Glassdoor, and tries to do so by serving a subpoena to get the identities of eight commenters, presumably thinking that this will discourage people from leaving comments on Glassdoor.
Pick the one that looks the simplest, has the least dubious constructions, and is overall the likeliest.
The two goals you stated are not mutually exclusive. Using some otherwise-ordinary and unremarkable prosecution, investigation, etc that would occur in any case, to simultaneously accomplish some other, possibly totally unrelated goal and/or advance some agenda, has been a pretty bog-standard practice in the US for decades.
The right to anonymity of these people must be guaranteed by the state. Same as if they were mafia stoolies. With an added penalty to redress the loss of revenue to Glassdoor by having people turned off engaging in its process in case they are outed, in the case that the anonymity of the witnesses is broken.
This may mean that anything directly from these people is inadmissable, but that can still be used to investigate something that IS admissable evience.
To corporations and the government, the trial at the center of all this is simply a means to an end, a convenient opportunity to accomplish the underlying goal: Destroying Glassdoor and setting in place a heavy disincentive for anyone else thinking of attempt to start a similar kind of service that reveals what many powerful people and businesses would wish to be ignored by everyone. It also serves government power-creep in eroding citizen's personal privacy rights & expectations.
Seeing as there is a rotating door between many mid- to high-level government positions and private-sector industries and corporations, it makes perfect sense that that they would team-up to destroy Glassdoor and make an example of them.
So is a government becoming too corrupt and authoritarian.
At some point, even a screwed-up, dumbed-down, self-absorbed, materialistic population like exists currently in the US will only tolerate so much before the Bubba Effect kicks in and people start shooting and burning anyone and anything to do with the federal government and anyone acting on their behalf. You got a small taste with Trump's election of the population's frustration with those in government. I believe that for many that voted for Trump, this is their last attempt to try to fix things in the federal government using legal & peaceful methods.
If things remain pretty much business as usual in D.C. & the Beltway things could get very, very ugly in the US by 2020.
Slashdot Mirror
A slashvertisement for push-marketing software that's also a marketing attack piece aimed at an industry holdout.
Who voted for this dreck while in the firehose, or did it simply get "inserted"?
Strat
I've had a great experience with these guys:
https://www.vapejoose.com/
Very high quality e-liquids, great variety including "build a bottle" custom mix/flavor/nicotine options, great e-liquid prices, and fast service.
Strat
Women serve in these positions, are you claiming a F-to-M soldier would somehow grow weaker than a trained female if they don't get their hormones; and this would suddenly happen after a single missed dose?
I'm against women and gays/trans/etc serving in the military as soldiers. On average they are simply not as physically capable in raw combat. They cost military resources to accommodate that could be directed toward goals that achieve victory and peace.
Save the social-justice identity-politics for the civilians. That shit gets soldiers killed.
Strat
Strat,
I think you're a super douche for signing your posts. That being said, I almost always agree with you!
Cheers,
AC
Captcha: discuss
Nothing "douche-y" about it.
I'm from an ancient age now long-past before there were personal computers or an internet that fomented casual disrespect and disregard for things said anonymously by oneself and others. I regard the trend as another small indication of the de-evolution of societal civilization.
Signing posts shows simple common courtesy and respect for one's own words and those of others I obviously thought enough of that I chose to communicate with in the first place. My principles and standards of civilized behavior have not lowered, society's has.
No idea why anyone would react negatively as you've done.
Strat
So what about all the Democrats who became Republicans after the Republican party introduced their "Southern Effort" to recruit segregationist lawmakers to the party after the Democrats passed the civil rights bill.
There was no "Southern Strategy". That's a propaganda lie that's been pushed for decades by Progressives to attempt to separate and distance themselves from a long and sordid past of racial discrimination, hatred, & bigotry, and blame it all on Republicans.
Hell, the Democratic Party kept and protected the seat of former KKK leader Robert Byrd (who voted against every single civil rights act for blacks & other minorities) as a Democratic US Senator until he died recently in 2010.
Strat
For a president to call a supreme court stacked with his own picked justices "his court" is a perfectly logical expression. To call the generals "my generals" is an expression of a delusional man hoping to impress his power upon the credulous and naive.
So you'd have us believe that calling supposedly unbiased and independent justices in **another freaking separate branch of government** "his court" because he did an end-run around separation of powers is okey-dokey, A-OK, but a POTUS you happen to disagree with is wrong to call the generals **directly under his freaking command as Commander In Chief** "his generals"!?
0_o
The actions of Wilson and Roosevelt in response to the political climate of their day...
You mean being Oath of Office/Constitution-violating racist and bigoted Progressive Democrats as history clearly shows they were?
Strat
On the other hand, all the talk about these sort of physiological differences are essentially strawmen when it comes to "any capacity" - there are plenty of army jobs that require something other than enduring shitty conditions for the long term, like if you operate radars at a nice coastal city or work on technology far behind the borders.
They all have to pass through boot camp and receive combat training, as there are these things called "paratroopers", "helicopters", "SCUBA equipped insertion teams like SEALs, and "airplanes" that mean the enemy can appear almost anywhere. The enemy may quite plausibly insert a commando team to take out the pleasant little coastal RADAR station you mention and that soldier may suddenly find himself holding an M4 carbine and defending his & his fellow-soldier's lives.
Being behind the "front lines" in no way means a soldier does not need the same combat abilities and skills as any front-line soldier, especially in modern times.
The military kills people and destroys things, Period.
That's their only purpose. It's primitive, brutal, and cares not for 'feelz'. This is organized tooth-and-claw, no-remorse, ruthless extermination. Adding touchy-feely social experiments will only get people unnecessarily killed and hurt.
Hey, if people want to add transgender therapies and surgeries as a VA benefit available after discharge, I'd have no objection.
But please, soldiers have far more than enough on their plates just remaining live soldiers in an armed conflict, let's not pile on anything more for them to worry about and adapt to we do not absolutely have to.
Strat
Even Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt never had the balls to refer to them as "my Generals".
A little history would be apropos, here.
FDR likely referred to the SCOTUS as "his court" after threatening to expand the number of justices and pack the court with "his justices" because the SCOTUS initially viewed provisions of Social Security as unconstitutional. At least the Republicans aren't talking about raising the number of SCOTUS justices and packing the bench to advance their agendas.
Oh, and just as an additional FYI, Woodrow Wilson racially-segregated the US military when it was not racially segregated at that time.
And both POTUS's sent ethnic Germans, Japanese, and more living in the US to camps during WW1 & WW2 and forced them to surrender all their property.
Strat
You can enjoy your wealth while you are alive. It's not "taken" from you until you are dead, at which point you won't need it.
But my family will need it, which is the reason why most people strive to be successful and create more wealth than just what they themselves need/want personally. Any wealth I did happen to accumulate I'd blow it all on whatever struck my fancy rather than allowing the government to confiscate it because I can't stop them when dead. Nobody lives their lives with the goal of advancing the State except those at the top of the State.
Strat
So what other drones are you going to buy? The kind Uncle Sam uses?
That junk!?
Mine have better missile & autonomous-guidance systems and cutting-edge ECM (electronic counter-measures). Notice nobody has spotted any of them yet!
Strat
Yes, keep the govt that might enforce such rules weak. That will work. Totally. Hold my beer.
Yes, because prioritizing reducing/eliminating the ability to enforce laws is mandatory when reducing the power of government, It's really the only area where we can start to make cuts. Too bad we don't have the ability to selectively reduce some areas while leaving others untouched or even bolster them.
Oh, wait...
Strat
If I can't bequeath my wealth to my children or family why would I let you have it?
More to the point, why would you break your back and struggle to create a business and work hard enough to create any significant amount of wealth under those conditions in the first place? "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
Strat
Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.
Quite true.
A functioning capitalist economy/society must have Rule of Law to make certain laws, contracts, etc etc are not broken or violated. There must be laws against predatory monopolistic actions and the must be enforced, and enforced equally.
Most of the laws to restrain such predatory monopolistic actions are already on the books. There is no lack of laws under which to prosecute such crimes, or prosecute anyone for almost anything, there are so many laws and regulations with the force of law on the books.
No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.
Strat
He probably assumed you were educated.
Well, you've proved you aren't, despite any schools you may have attended.
Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing.
As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.
Strat
Seriously, though get over your meme-centered life, and recognize that people do have problems with the operation of drones, and addressing them is going to lead to some restrictions.
Why? Because crying "freedom" over being an ass makes a fool out of you.
Yes, because making *another* law to make something that's already illegal...illegal...makes perfect sense. /s
Strat
Yes, but it's trespassing, voyeurism, and damage to other people's property on the internet!!...err...with a drone!!
Sorry, bit of a meme-stream crossing, there.
Strat
[Autonomous weapons ]
What could possibly go wrong? :-)
"Please put down your weapon!
You have twenty seconds to comply!"
https://youtu.be/A9l9wxGFl4k
Strat
From andydread ( 758754 ):
In the US there is no free market in the ISP space.
From: Rob Y. ( 110975 )
Not to mention that the nature of these anti-consumer practices (absent any laws to change it) would be mostly invisible to the consumer.
Change the laws/pass new laws directly addressing net neutrality specifically through Congress where there are elected representatives that can be held accountable directly. Handing it off to a political-appointee-run bureaucracy to write and implement sweeping regulations with the force of federal law (mostly to avoid that accountability in the first place) is asking for trouble.
Strat
So how do you suggest this specific problem be solved? OK so you are against govt regulation. So who is left to crack down on monopolistic practices?
Just because the FCC isn't in charge of the internet does not mean corporations/ISPs are suddenly immune from the law. Normal existing laws already cover most things. If DAs and prosecutors, etc would actually decide to do something, laws against fraud, racketeering, etc etc could be applied.
That's the heart of the problem right there: There are already laws on the books that could be applied here, but government is unwilling because they are corrupt. Handing the global internet to the FCC isn't going to make them any more willing to do the right thing. It just hands a major amount of power over the internet to an agency in a corrupt government.
Strat
I do care (I don't speak for the other guy), and I'm sure lots of other people in tech care too. But it doesn't matter: we have zero power now. Trump is President, and Pai is the FCC Director, and the GOP is in power in Congress, so there's nothing any of us can do at least until the 2018 elections, and even that's questionable as you'd need a really strong majority in Congress to pass a law overruling the FCC's leadership.
Look, I and most people I've talked to whose views are fairly-consistent with mine don't want ISPs doing shady crap regarding who gets what how fast any more than anyone else does. I (we) just don't think a federal bureaucracy is the go-to, best solution to making sure it doesn't happen.
I also don't want the federal government extending it's power ever-deeper into regulating the internet. Especially not by a commission whose head is politically appointed and makes & alters policies & regulations with each new administration and political-appointee heading it. Every government agency, dept., etc experiences 'mission creep'. They never give back expanded powers and scope once gained.
It's a situation of; "You don't want to see our guys with that much power, and we don't want to see your guys with that much power." How about instead of fighting about what the federal government should do to make sure ISPs don't play dirty, we find another means of accomplishing the same thing and avoid either side having the big stick?
I just don't want to allow the slightest possibility that permitting the government camel's-nose into the internet-tent might someday lead to US ISPs required to tie accounts to federal I.D. and other such chilling and oppressive possibilities we see occurring elsewhere.
Far too often people talk past each other. We share far more of the same goals than we differ on. Our principles are mostly the same, we just have different ideas of how to go about solving some problems, and what may constitute a problem.
No matter who might achieve political power, there will always be ~40% or more of the population that will never see things the other way. What are you going to do with them? You've got to live with them, otherwise we start talking about camps and ovens and other horrors, and nobody wants that.
Both sides need to stop trying so fscking hard to win at any cost, and start talking to and actually listening to the other side. Otherwise, Horror-Ville is the only way it ends.
Strat
Let's look at possible hypotheses.
Hypothesis: Government investigators want to talk to certain individuals about crimes they likely witnessed. To this end, they get a subpoena to get the identities of the probable witnesses, after which they will talk to them as part of the investigation. Note that this is not any sort of power creep, as the government has always had the power to subpoena information relevant to a criminal investigation.
Hypothesis: Government, for some strange reason, wants to eliminate or discredit Glassdoor, and tries to do so by serving a subpoena to get the identities of eight commenters, presumably thinking that this will discourage people from leaving comments on Glassdoor.
Pick the one that looks the simplest, has the least dubious constructions, and is overall the likeliest.
The two goals you stated are not mutually exclusive. Using some otherwise-ordinary and unremarkable prosecution, investigation, etc that would occur in any case, to simultaneously accomplish some other, possibly totally unrelated goal and/or advance some agenda, has been a pretty bog-standard practice in the US for decades.
Strat
The right to anonymity of these people must be guaranteed by the state. Same as if they were mafia stoolies. With an added penalty to redress the loss of revenue to Glassdoor by having people turned off engaging in its process in case they are outed, in the case that the anonymity of the witnesses is broken.
This may mean that anything directly from these people is inadmissable, but that can still be used to investigate something that IS admissable evience.
To corporations and the government, the trial at the center of all this is simply a means to an end, a convenient opportunity to accomplish the underlying goal: Destroying Glassdoor and setting in place a heavy disincentive for anyone else thinking of attempt to start a similar kind of service that reveals what many powerful people and businesses would wish to be ignored by everyone. It also serves government power-creep in eroding citizen's personal privacy rights & expectations.
Seeing as there is a rotating door between many mid- to high-level government positions and private-sector industries and corporations, it makes perfect sense that that they would team-up to destroy Glassdoor and make an example of them.
Strat
Bad idea.
So is a government becoming too corrupt and authoritarian.
At some point, even a screwed-up, dumbed-down, self-absorbed, materialistic population like exists currently in the US will only tolerate so much before the Bubba Effect kicks in and people start shooting and burning anyone and anything to do with the federal government and anyone acting on their behalf. You got a small taste with Trump's election of the population's frustration with those in government. I believe that for many that voted for Trump, this is their last attempt to try to fix things in the federal government using legal & peaceful methods.
If things remain pretty much business as usual in D.C. & the Beltway things could get very, very ugly in the US by 2020.
'Interesting times' indeed.
Strat
Trains hate it when you anthropomorphize them.
Only when you're;
Drivin' that train
High on cocaine
Casey Jones you better watch your speed
Trouble ahead, trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind
-- 'Casey Jones' by Grateful Dead
Strat
You do know that if you are a US citizen working abroad you still have to pay taxes in US, right? Why should it be different for Corps?
Someone named John Galt just called.
He's complaining about the flood of new residents the US government is causing to relocate to someplace called "Galt's Gulch".
Strat