"It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures,"
What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off. The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot.
So who am I going to take the word of? Some nutcase on/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
I don't know if MS gives any money at all to the foundation. Most of the money (probably all really) comes from Bill Gates' stock portfolio. Here is how it works.
Bill Gives stock to the foundation. Keep in mind this is stock he got for nothing. The foundation sells the stock and gets money. The foundation gives away the money while maximizing publicity to reform the image of Bill Gates.
It's a nice system. The only cost to gates are hypothetical future earnings and the publicity has been very effective.
It's funny actually. Bill Gates can give away 99% of his money and still have a billion dollars left!. I think most people could live very comfortably on a billion dollars no?
I think you give Bill too much credit. He didn't give a cent before he got married and the name of the foundation is Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I think all this giving is due to his wife who is probably a decent human being.
"There is simply no open source alternative to VMWare right now that even comes close to what it does at the speeds it does it."
Not even close? Not even a little bit? I thought XEN was actually faster then VMware.
I am curious to know how you eveluate "not even close". I think most rational people would say that QEMU and XEN are "close" to vmware if not eclipsing it in performance or features.
It caused third degree burns, it was too hot. QED.
Coffee that is not too hot does not cause third degree burns. It may cause burns, it may cause second degree burns but not third degree burns. This coffee was too hot.
"I do however think that the government is the only agency (besides maybe IBM) that we can count on to do/fund the Big Research Projects like nuclear fusion and such."
Even if I accept your argument there is no need to presume that any of that research has to be done in the context of the military industrial complex.
"Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. "
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
"It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE."
I have never ever in my entire life had a cup of cofee which gave me third degree burns when tried to drink it. There is such a thing as too hot. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
"It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT."
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Secondly it was too hot. Get that through your thick head. It was too hot for human consumption. It was hot enough to cause third degree burns. It was too hot.
"If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?"
Why don't you read up on this case instead of going on and on about something you are so ignorant about.
The jury found that both parties were partially responsible. They found that McDonalds carried greater responsibility. If the temprature was 20 degrees cooler maybe the jury would have found them less responsible. Maybe they would have paid nothing, maybe they would have paid much less.
It's not a black and white world. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, sean hannity and bill o'reilly. Those guys are stupid and they are making you look stupid.
"No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old."
Read this carefully because you didn't read it the first time.
Cofee was hot enough to cause third degree burns. If she drank the cofee her mouth would have burned.
"And were you aware that the plaintiff was 81 years old? Are you aware that octagenarians have generally thinner and more delicate skin? Are you aware she may have been more succeptible to burns and therefore should have been more careful as a result? Are you aware that we are arguing over a 20 degree F temperature difference?"
Yes I am aware of those fact. So was the jury and judge.
"Corporations bad / Lawyers good."
Corporations are amoral, soul-less beings with full rights the same as human beings with souls. I will leave it up to you to decide whether this is good or bad. All I know is if I burned you I would go to jail.
"iF you think the government spending money on technology is a big risk, clearly you haven't considered what happens if we don't advance technology at a rapid rate - it's called total global collapse and it's not pretty"
Only if you believe that the govt is the only agent capable of advancing technology.
Since the premise of your argument is flawed I will not respond to the rest.
"Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that placed coffee between the womans legs, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that subsequently opened that cup in a moving car, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact coffee is a beverage which is universally understood to be served hot, McDonald's is responsible."
Yup. McDonalds made the coffee to hot. Hotter then any of the national standards, hotter then what they had been told was safe. So hot it was unsafe to drink. If the woman had attempted to drink it she would have burned her mouth. They did this despite being told about it, despite being warned about it.
So they are at least partially responsible.
"Your reasoning is what is wrong with the US legal system."
No, your reasoning is what is wrong with the US. Like most americans you can only think in black and white. Either the woman is responsible or McDonalds is responsible. It's not like that. There is responsiblity on both sides.
Lucky for us the jury was able to see more colors then black and white. When I go to buy coffee I have some reasonable expectations. One of those expectations is that the coffee I buy will not scald my lips and tounge with third degree burns when I attempt to drink it. In this case it was not and that is the fault of McDOnalds more then it is the fault of woman.
"but that should have no bearing on personal liability for her own risky behavior. McDonald's or any other company should not be held liable for the stupidity of their own customers. And, apparently the jurors on this particular case were no brighter than the plaintiff."
It's risky to buy coffee? In this case she didn't attempt to drink it right away (thank god for that) but if she did her mouth would have been burned. It is also not stupid to take a drink out of your cup after the vendor gives it to you.
In this case the jurors were much brighter then you. They recognized that McDonalds was going to cause lots of burns on their customers and that they showed no regard for the safety of their customers. They chose to punish MCDonalds in the hope that the corporation would change it's behavior. It worked. Since we are unable to imprison corporations that's all we can do.
"That's the point, I think. The military needs to push the edge of technology in a way that the private sector rarely does, especially when it's building against another technologically-capable enemy (or potential enemy). There are few "necessities" more compelling than the life-and-death struggle of combat."
I suppose the same could be said for the space program. In fact I would rather spend my money on the space program then killing brown people any day.
But really I don't want the govt spending any money pushing the edges of technology. That's a highly risky venture and we need our taxes spend on better things then to take HUGE risks like that. I mean the govt would actually be better off it spend that money in vegas in terms of benefits returned to the public.
I also am tired of being told to be afraid of all these supposed enemies. All those years of being told we were going to be destroyed by the ruskies, the chinese and now the arabs. It's all a ruse designed to keep you from being too vocal and milking you for your money.
You know countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, portugal, and a ton of other countries haven't spend 1/100th of the money on weapons that we have and nobody seems to have nuked them or anything.
Well maybe that's not a fair comparison, they are not dicks like we are.
Notice I put quotes around the word free. The US govt (and really even the people) don't really regard palestenians as human beings. They are simply domesticated animals who live on a ranch owned by Israel as far as the US is concerned.
What you are merely saying is that the military needed those things before private enterprise did. You can rest assured that if and when they are needed private enterprise seems to be able to innovate. You know the whole mother-of-invention thing.
Do I really need to make a list of innovations that originated outside of the military and then adopted by the military?
"As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners."
So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise.
A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy.
"You have no clue what they said. You were not there. You've gone beyond putting words in my mouth- you are not putting words in the mouths of people you never met."
You said they called themselves socialist. Then you defined something as socialist which almost nobody believes in. So either you are lying or you have some weird perception of socialilst.
"Again- I know the conversations I had with them and have related them clearly."
So you are telling me your professors said people should not be able to make money? That they should live a life of poverty?
"You compare the total benefits of tenured professors at major colleges to the total benefits of everyone else they are in the top 10%."
Bullshit. Prove it.
"The comments they did make implied that some "rich" people should pay taxes to cover very generous social benefits and they didn't think they were rich (while driving 40k luxury cars and living in above mentioned very nice houses). It seemed soft-headed to me at the time."
They paid taxes didn't they? By the way driving a 40K car is not rich, it's middle class. Upper middle class people have 100K cars, rich people have airplanes.
You tell me I don't know what your professors said but you have no idea of what they made or what their beneifts are. You are simply upset that they have large houses (are they renting, do they own it outright, are they mortgaged up to their eyeballs) and they drive 40K cars. If they were rich then they are paying taxes. Unlike more republicans they are actually asking to be taxed more.
So you got milked for money, get over it. That's why you exist. You exist to be milked my boy, you will be milked all your life. You are nothing but a domesticated farm animal to the people who have set up mechanisms to make sure you are drained of all the money you make.
"Seems to me like you had a fun little troll rant. I can't conclude much about you. Are you really liberal, or ignorant, or stupid? "
Does it bother you that you can't tell if I am a liberal or not?? I bet it does. Republitards like you want to put people in little boxes so they don't have to listen to any opposing ideas. Your professors were "socialist" other people who disagree with you are "liberals" or "stupid". Well you my friend are a republitard. A republitard is a republican who is so dumb he can't even explain his positions.
"It's just too bad for the world that you aren't smart and motivated enough to amass any significant amount of money. "
Maybe he just doesn't want to lie, cheat and steal to make that much money. To me it doesn't make sense to make a bunch of money and then give a tiny little it of it back. Maybe it's better not to make that money in the first place. That's what jesus seemed to be saying anyway.
"Hmm, I guess they were mistaken when they called themselves socialists. "
IF they called themselves socialist is wasn't the socialism you defined. It was the modern US and European style of socialism. They didn't say "man should not make money". They didn't say "man should make as little money as possible". They simply believe that people should pay taxes commensurate with their wealth to take care of the poor. They almost certainly believe that the rich should pay more taxes then the rich.
So you confused their belief and interpreted to mean that socialist think nobody should make money. That's not right.
"As for the rest of my liberal professors, I merely basked in the hypocrisy of professors who felt we should have high taxes on the well off and high benefits for the poor while conveniently excluding themselves from the well off when I know their total compensation (salary, vacation, and pensions) was in the top 10% in the country"
It seems like you learned absolutely nothing in shcool. Take for example your highly retarded comparison. If you total up salary, vacation and pensions of the professors and compare that with ONLY THE SALARY of everybody else then they go into the 10%. If you compare that with the salary, vacations and pensions of everybody else then they stay about the same.
Oh and did the professors every say they shouldn't pay taxes? If not then you are lying about their hypocracy. Did they say their salary should be treated different? If not then you are lying once again.
You know whe the real hypocrits were? It was your business professors. By not charging you what the market can bear why were betraying their capitalist and republican ideals. It's those people you should be getting mad at.
"I disagree with any statement that the US is primarily a socialist state. We are much closer to capitalist than socialist."
The vast majority of the US budget is spent on socialist programs. Go look at the budger breakdown some day. Social security, medicare, medicaid, benefits, salaries for public workers (the size of the govt in general), farm, logging, mining, ranching subsidies and subsidies for every sector in general etc, take up most of the budget. I am not even counting the interest on the debt since debt and interest are loved by capitalist.
So it seems to me you need to go back to shchool. Your hatred of professors seems to have prevented you from learning.
In some states playing the violin on a sunday is illegal, in some adultery is illegal, in some selling strawberries in bunches of more then 16 oounces is illegal.
My point is that every day you break the law. Every day without exception. This is because there are so many laws still in the books that's impossible to live a normal life and not break the law.
Pulbic drunkenness is one of those laws. It's just an excuse for the cop to haul you in. If you werent drunk the cop would haul you in for jaywalking or wearing a red shirt on a tuesday, or simply obstruction of justice (it is obstructing justice if you refuse to peacefully go down to the court house when the officer tells you to), resisting arrest (even if there is no rational cause for the arrest) etc.
Cop: I am taking you in son. You: What for? I didn't do anything. Cop: shut up and get in the car. You: Why? Why don't you tell me? Cop: Resisting arrest.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was not too hot. I have shown you time and time again, evidence which shows that not only was it served at the optimal serving temperatures,"
/. who is offended that a corporation had to pay for burning a woman or the US court system.....
What evidence. You just kept repeating the same nonsensical shit you always sprout off. The actual evidence was heard in a court of law. According to the actual evidence it was too hot.
So who am I going to take the word of? Some nutcase on
Gee that's a tough one, I think I will take the word of the court system on this one.
I don't know if MS gives any money at all to the foundation. Most of the money (probably all really) comes from Bill Gates' stock portfolio. Here is how it works.
Bill Gives stock to the foundation. Keep in mind this is stock he got for nothing.
The foundation sells the stock and gets money.
The foundation gives away the money while maximizing publicity to reform the image of Bill Gates.
It's a nice system. The only cost to gates are hypothetical future earnings and the publicity has been very effective.
It's funny actually. Bill Gates can give away 99% of his money and still have a billion dollars left!. I think most people could live very comfortably on a billion dollars no?
I think you give Bill too much credit. He didn't give a cent before he got married and the name of the foundation is Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I think all this giving is due to his wife who is probably a decent human being.
"There is simply no open source alternative to VMWare right now that even comes close to what it does at the speeds it does it."
Not even close? Not even a little bit? I thought XEN was actually faster then VMware.
I am curious to know how you eveluate "not even close". I think most rational people would say that QEMU and XEN are "close" to vmware if not eclipsing it in performance or features.
It caused third degree burns, it was too hot. QED.
Coffee that is not too hot does not cause third degree burns. It may cause burns, it may cause second degree burns but not third degree burns. This coffee was too hot.
"Getting dragged through the courts and having their image tarnished by a fucking moron was payment enough from McDonalds don't you think?"
No it wasn't. Since their sales didn't go down there is no reason to think that this court case had impact on them other then their fine.
"That's because presumeably you aren't stupid enough to attempt to drink coffe that was freshly made."
Nonsense. In every restaurant I have ever been in when the coffee I ordered comes I start to drink it.
"HOW ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUPID ACTIONS OF THE LADY?"
Because they served coffee that was too hot. Too hot for human consumption. Hot enough to cause third degree burns.
You know, too hot. Not just hot, but too hot. Excessively hot. Hotter then usual. More hot. Much more hot. Not just hot. Too hot.
Got it?
"No, I can't concieve of a liquid that is too hot when we are talking about a product that is made with BOILING water. "
Coffee is best when not made with boiling water.
"I do however think that the government is the only agency (besides maybe IBM) that we can count on to do/fund the Big Research Projects like nuclear fusion and such."
Even if I accept your argument there is no need to presume that any of that research has to be done in the context of the military industrial complex.
"Good, I'm glad that she was found partialy responsible. And how much money was she required to pay? None? Hmmm. "
Third degree burns in her crotch were payment enough don't you think?
"It would have been better if she was found completely responsible for it. Here's the deal, coffe is HOT. Hot things BURN you. Burns can be SEVERE."
I have never ever in my entire life had a cup of cofee which gave me third degree burns when tried to drink it. There is such a thing as too hot. Did you ever think of that? Can you conceive of a liquid being too hot?
"It's about personal responsibility and the fact that coffe is HOT."
Personal responsiblity is for suckers and fools. That's why we invented corporations. Notice that the person who made the coffee and the person who served the coffee escaped all punishment. The corporation shielded them from personal responsibility like they always do.
Secondly it was too hot. Get that through your thick head. It was too hot for human consumption. It was hot enough to cause third degree burns. It was too hot.
Fucking moron.
"If she recieved 3rd degree burns, 20 degrees less would still have burned her (and rather badly) had she attempted to drink it and or spilled it down her pants. Should McDonalds have been liable then too?"
Why don't you read up on this case instead of going on and on about something you are so ignorant about.
The jury found that both parties were partially responsible. They found that McDonalds carried greater responsibility. If the temprature was 20 degrees cooler maybe the jury would have found them less responsible. Maybe they would have paid nothing, maybe they would have paid much less.
It's not a black and white world. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, sean hannity and bill o'reilly. Those guys are stupid and they are making you look stupid.
"No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old."
Read this carefully because you didn't read it the first time.
Cofee was hot enough to cause third degree burns.
If she drank the cofee her mouth would have burned.
"And were you aware that the plaintiff was 81 years old? Are you aware that octagenarians have generally thinner and more delicate skin? Are you aware she may have been more succeptible to burns and therefore should have been more careful as a result? Are you aware that we are arguing over a 20 degree F temperature difference?"
Yes I am aware of those fact. So was the jury and judge.
"Corporations bad / Lawyers good."
Corporations are amoral, soul-less beings with full rights the same as human beings with souls. I will leave it up to you to decide whether this is good or bad. All I know is if I burned you I would go to jail.
"iF you think the government spending money on technology is a big risk, clearly you haven't considered what happens if we don't advance technology at a rapid rate - it's called total global collapse and it's not pretty"
Only if you believe that the govt is the only agent capable of advancing technology.
Since the premise of your argument is flawed I will not respond to the rest.
"Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that placed coffee between the womans legs, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact it was not McDonald's that subsequently opened that cup in a moving car, McDonald's is responsible. Despite the fact coffee is a beverage which is universally understood to be served hot, McDonald's is responsible."
Yup. McDonalds made the coffee to hot. Hotter then any of the national standards, hotter then what they had been told was safe. So hot it was unsafe to drink. If the woman had attempted to drink it she would have burned her mouth. They did this despite being told about it, despite being warned about it.
So they are at least partially responsible.
"Your reasoning is what is wrong with the US legal system."
No, your reasoning is what is wrong with the US. Like most americans you can only think in black and white. Either the woman is responsible or McDonalds is responsible. It's not like that. There is responsiblity on both sides.
Lucky for us the jury was able to see more colors then black and white. When I go to buy coffee I have some reasonable expectations. One of those expectations is that the coffee I buy will not scald my lips and tounge with third degree burns when I attempt to drink it. In this case it was not and that is the fault of McDOnalds more then it is the fault of woman.
"but that should have no bearing on personal liability for her own risky behavior. McDonald's or any other company should not be held liable for the stupidity of their own customers. And, apparently the jurors on this particular case were no brighter than the plaintiff."
It's risky to buy coffee? In this case she didn't attempt to drink it right away (thank god for that) but if she did her mouth would have been burned. It is also not stupid to take a drink out of your cup after the vendor gives it to you.
In this case the jurors were much brighter then you. They recognized that McDonalds was going to cause lots of burns on their customers and that they showed no regard for the safety of their customers. They chose to punish MCDonalds in the hope that the corporation would change it's behavior. It worked. Since we are unable to imprison corporations that's all we can do.
"Was McDonalds morally or legally liable for the poor lady's injury? "
Yes.
"Personal responsiblity seems to be lost in this age, people need to own up to their own dumb-assery."
Personal responsibility is suckers and fools. That's why corporations are invented.
"That's the point, I think. The military needs to push the edge of technology in a way that the private sector rarely does, especially when it's building against another technologically-capable enemy (or potential enemy). There are few "necessities" more compelling than the life-and-death struggle of combat."
I suppose the same could be said for the space program. In fact I would rather spend my money on the space program then killing brown people any day.
But really I don't want the govt spending any money pushing the edges of technology. That's a highly risky venture and we need our taxes spend on better things then to take HUGE risks like that. I mean the govt would actually be better off it spend that money in vegas in terms of benefits returned to the public.
I also am tired of being told to be afraid of all these supposed enemies. All those years of being told we were going to be destroyed by the ruskies, the chinese and now the arabs. It's all a ruse designed to keep you from being too vocal and milking you for your money.
You know countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, portugal, and a ton of other countries haven't spend 1/100th of the money on weapons that we have and nobody seems to have nuked them or anything.
Well maybe that's not a fair comparison, they are not dicks like we are.
Notice I put quotes around the word free. The US govt (and really even the people) don't really regard palestenians as human beings. They are simply domesticated animals who live on a ranch owned by Israel as far as the US is concerned.
"Just ask some of the poor folks in N. Korea,"
Those guys are going to get old waiting for GW to free them from their evil opressor. Too bad they don't have oil or something else we want.
Ah well they can wait in line, after we "free" the iranians, syrians and palestenians we might get around to them.
What you are merely saying is that the military needed those things before private enterprise did. You can rest assured that if and when they are needed private enterprise seems to be able to innovate. You know the whole mother-of-invention thing.
Do I really need to make a list of innovations that originated outside of the military and then adopted by the military?
"As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners."
So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise.
A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy.
I always suspected the people who worked for those industries were sadistic bastards and I guess I was right.
"So any websites you refer to would just be product research. Just remember, it's a "Defense Contractor"!"
When was the last time we deployed our army for defensive purposes? WWII I think.
"You have no clue what they said. You were not there. You've gone beyond putting words in my mouth- you are not putting words in the mouths of people you never met."
You said they called themselves socialist. Then you defined something as socialist which almost nobody believes in. So either you are lying or you have some weird perception of socialilst.
"Again- I know the conversations I had with them and have related them clearly."
So you are telling me your professors said people should not be able to make money? That they should live a life of poverty?
"You compare the total benefits of tenured professors at major colleges to the total benefits of everyone else they are in the top 10%."
Bullshit. Prove it.
"The comments they did make implied that some "rich" people should pay taxes to cover very generous social benefits and they didn't think they were rich (while driving 40k luxury cars and living in above mentioned very nice houses). It seemed soft-headed to me at the time."
They paid taxes didn't they? By the way driving a 40K car is not rich, it's middle class. Upper middle class people have 100K cars, rich people have airplanes.
You tell me I don't know what your professors said but you have no idea of what they made or what their beneifts are. You are simply upset that they have large houses (are they renting, do they own it outright, are they mortgaged up to their eyeballs) and they drive 40K cars. If they were rich then they are paying taxes. Unlike more republicans they are actually asking to be taxed more.
So you got milked for money, get over it. That's why you exist. You exist to be milked my boy, you will be milked all your life. You are nothing but a domesticated farm animal to the people who have set up mechanisms to make sure you are drained of all the money you make.
"Seems to me like you had a fun little troll rant. I can't conclude much about you. Are you really liberal, or ignorant, or stupid? "
Does it bother you that you can't tell if I am a liberal or not?? I bet it does. Republitards like you want to put people in little boxes so they don't have to listen to any opposing ideas. Your professors were "socialist" other people who disagree with you are "liberals" or "stupid". Well you my friend are a republitard. A republitard is a republican who is so dumb he can't even explain his positions.
"It's just too bad for the world that you aren't smart and motivated enough to amass any significant amount of money. "
Maybe he just doesn't want to lie, cheat and steal to make that much money. To me it doesn't make sense to make a bunch of money and then give a tiny little it of it back. Maybe it's better not to make that money in the first place. That's what jesus seemed to be saying anyway.
"I don't sit at work (defense contracting company) and read anti-war websites all day. "
Are there web sites that show all the people killed and maimed by your products? Maybe that's what you should be reading.
"Hmm, I guess they were mistaken when they called themselves socialists. "
IF they called themselves socialist is wasn't the socialism you defined. It was the modern US and European style of socialism. They didn't say "man should not make money". They didn't say "man should make as little money as possible". They simply believe that people should pay taxes commensurate with their wealth to take care of the poor. They almost certainly believe that the rich should pay more taxes then the rich.
So you confused their belief and interpreted to mean that socialist think nobody should make money. That's not right.
"As for the rest of my liberal professors, I merely basked in the hypocrisy of professors who felt we should have high taxes on the well off and high benefits for the poor while conveniently excluding themselves from the well off when I know their total compensation (salary, vacation, and pensions) was in the top 10% in the country"
It seems like you learned absolutely nothing in shcool. Take for example your highly retarded comparison. If you total up salary, vacation and pensions of the professors and compare that with ONLY THE SALARY of everybody else then they go into the 10%. If you compare that with the salary, vacations and pensions of everybody else then they stay about the same.
Oh and did the professors every say they shouldn't pay taxes? If not then you are lying about their hypocracy. Did they say their salary should be treated different? If not then you are lying once again.
You know whe the real hypocrits were? It was your business professors. By not charging you what the market can bear why were betraying their capitalist and republican ideals. It's those people you should be getting mad at.
"I disagree with any statement that the US is primarily a socialist state. We are much closer to capitalist than socialist."
The vast majority of the US budget is spent on socialist programs. Go look at the budger breakdown some day. Social security, medicare, medicaid, benefits, salaries for public workers (the size of the govt in general), farm, logging, mining, ranching subsidies and subsidies for every sector in general etc, take up most of the budget. I am not even counting the interest on the debt since debt and interest are loved by capitalist.
So it seems to me you need to go back to shchool. Your hatred of professors seems to have prevented you from learning.
In some states playing the violin on a sunday is illegal, in some adultery is illegal, in some selling strawberries in bunches of more then 16 oounces is illegal.
My point is that every day you break the law. Every day without exception. This is because there are so many laws still in the books that's impossible to live a normal life and not break the law.
Pulbic drunkenness is one of those laws. It's just an excuse for the cop to haul you in. If you werent drunk the cop would haul you in for jaywalking or wearing a red shirt on a tuesday, or simply obstruction of justice (it is obstructing justice if you refuse to peacefully go down to the court house when the officer tells you to), resisting arrest (even if there is no rational cause for the arrest) etc.
Cop: I am taking you in son.
You: What for? I didn't do anything.
Cop: shut up and get in the car.
You: Why? Why don't you tell me?
Cop: Resisting arrest.
Bingo!