If you're going to lower the ban hammer, how about you hippies ban marijuana cigarettes too.
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is a bigoted, hypocritical racist heterophobic cisphobic blah blah blah..../liberal mode off
If those funds came from Trump corporation coffers it would be a personal or business expenditure, not a campaign one. The Campaign coffers, however, cannot pay hush money and NOT report it.
Incorrect.
It is illegal if you make the payments using money from the Campaign funds and do not disclose it.
It is NOT illegal if you do it from your OWN personal funds and do not disclose it.
There's a big difference. Trump did it from his own funds, it had been an ongoing issue for a few years prior.
And the idea that it's to "influence an election" is entirely subjective based on those criteria. Paying for a nice suit or a haircut or tanning or dental work to influence your own election for example, would be considered illegal if paid for by the Campaign, but not out of the candidate's own pocket. It's the same thing with hush money. It's not normally taken to this extent, even Obama had campaign violations and no one took it to this level. This is entirely a political hatchet job. It's a partisan attempt to unseat a president. Nothing more, nothing less.
Most Americans support your argument if you agree to use and support ONLY the word "LEGAL" or "DOCUMENTED" in front of every iteration of immigrant or "immigration" you utter in regards to people who would come here.
People in this country who love the rule of law are NOT against LEGAL immigration or LEGAL immigrants... That's the difference.
Here are the problems with your argument:
1) Illegally entering the country is a crime. It all starts with this. Nothing you do, nothing you say, nothing you think, no amount of "but muh chillins!" feel-good argument will change the fact that you STARTED WITH A CRIMINAL ACT. This alone invalidates EVERY OTHER SINGLE ARGUMENT made.
2) You're assuming that if they don't get caught, they have a right to be here. Again, fallacious argument. See point #1.
3) I guarantee that a Mexican family illegally crossing the border 12 years later aren't calling themselves "American", they'll identify as "Mexican", or whatever flavor of liberal hyphenation or euphemism you want to foist on us, like "undocumented" or "immigrant". The problem is legally, they are aliens, and illegal status due to the fact they are not here with the permission or authorization of the US Government. Nothing you do or say will change that. See point #1.
4) The husband working is already breaking ANOTHER set of laws regarding employment in the country, and those employing him are ALSO breaking the law. If you are here illegally, then everything you DO is now illegally done as well: working, living, voting, whatever... SEE POINT #1. (Are we sensing a pattern here yet?)
5) I guarantee you the parents have NOT been paying the appropriate taxes any citizen or legal status national would be paying, or if they are attempting to do so, they're probably committing the crimes of forgery, identity theft, or misreprensenting themselves to the government in some way. So see point #1
6) Just because they "identify" as American doesn't MAKE them American. As Tyler Durden says: "Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Any argument in this vein is an argument trying to appeal to your better nature, when it should infuriate the listener, and if you're an actual law-abiding "came in the right way" immigrant, it should make you even MORE pissed off, because, they entered ILLEGALLY. So again... SEE POINT #1!
7) Your statement about just giving them the test to become citizens is a slap in the face of everyone who comes here legally. It invalidates the rule of law, rewards illegal behavior, and is the equivalent of letting a bank robber go free with the money after being caught. It's not right, it provides NO deterrent to future incursions into the country, and quite simply, is not how this whole legal immigration thing works! So again, see point #1
I swear, every time I see arguments like yours, it makes my blood boil that people are that weak-willed and cowardly that they can't actually stand up for the law and their country, for fear of being called a "racist" or a "bigot". It's not about race, it's not about bigotry (at least for those of us who want the law enforced). Maybe for the more liberal amongst the country who feel they can be so morally superior by having their own brown slaves working as their nannies or lawnscapers and warning them when "la migra" comes a'callin!
You guys are all like "meh, they got over the border, it's too hard to send them back so they should just stay" (See Point #1 above)
NO!... NO NO NO NO NO NO HELL FRICKIN' NO!!! You are NOT entitled to stay in the country if you entered illegally. GAME OVER, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars, YOU LOSE! Crying about it or "think of the children" will NOT change the law or the consequences. They were COUNTING on pussies like you when they entered the country illegally!!!
How about you put on your big boy pants, stop being such a god damn wimp, and be brave enough to say: "This is America, we have rules and laws that we all must follow. If you break the rules/laws, you will have to suffer the consequences. You broke our rules, you entered illegally, it doesn't matter if you and your children were here for 5 days or 5 years, GET THE HELL OUT and COME BACK IN THE RIGHT WAY!" It is not immoral to PUNISH the GUILTY. It is not CRUEL to punish the GUILTY. Deportation is the consequences of illegal entry. You broke the law. You have to pay the penalty, and the penalty is GTFO!
How about you go back and do some actual reading of the laws of our northern and southern neighbors: They actually ENFORCE their immigration laws!
Even if anyone Can only buy just a lousy handgun then it is still sick!
I was exaggerating to underline my point
Any civilized country have strict rules for firearms!
Actually, when people hear statements like yours, what they really hear is "Firearms should be banned in a civilized country".
Granted, it's a lofty goal to have a safe society if you take away everyone's guns, but it's also childishly naive to think that'll ever happen.
What you're really saying is the rallying cry of the oppressor. History has shown that when a government disarms it's people, that it is in the interests of control. Control leads to atrocity against the people BY the government... EVERY... SINGLE... TIME. The U.S. Constitution has enshrined the right to keep and bear arms for this very reason.
Don't believe me? Why don't you crack open a history book sometime. Gun Confiscation aka "gun control" measures always are used so that the oppressing regime has the weapons, and no resistance to their dictates... Sure, you're pushing ideas so "common sense" that they have to be enforced, at the point of a gun. Eventually it'll degenerate into pograms of control, discrimination, oppression, hatred, and death, whether it's ideological or racial. Power corrupts.... as the saying goes...
I also find it highly interesting that most dystopian fiction always has the common theme that oppressive regimes always practice control over people by robbing them of the means to protect themselves from oppression.
I wonder what that says to progressives and their gun control efforts?
Thank you, finally I see someone pointing out the obvious flaw in the "wage gap" issue:
It's not that women are paid less than men for the same jobs (that's been illegal since the legislation passed in the 60's), but the actual *earnings* that are different due to behaviors and decisions made.
I work for casinos. I know for a fact you can use a credit card to get cash which then you can play with. You just can't use the card to directly buy the chips without cash. But by extension, you can buy chips with a credit card, you just have an extra step to go through to get it. It's really semantics in the end.
I wouldn't call a Democrat Congress more "fiscally responsible" than the Republicans, either. Not when Democrat socialist policies increased the debt by 9+ Trillion under a Democrat-controlled Congress for most of Democrat Barack Obama's term either. People can try to blame the President, or even a party in particular, but in reality, it's Congress's spending problem that's the core issue. We need a balanced budget amendment. We need a political class that doesn't treat the public like an ATM and grant largesse under the guise of "social justice" to buy votes.
Actually, the President isn't responsible for the deficits entirely, because it's the Congress that controls the purse strings.
A more accurate statement is that deficits are caused by Congress, who votes on them and passes them.
http://goliards.us/adelphi/def... Here's an interesting display for you. Take from it what you will, but I'm not entirely convinced that the problem is "Republican" or "Democrat". I would argue that the problem is merely a result of politics.
I would use chits with a specific weight, that you write the number of the candidate on the chit, which is then fed through a computerized counter that reads the number on the chit, into a weighed container clearly labelled for the candidate's number. You obtain a chit by verifying your identity using your state-issued ID or other recognized form of identifying information to affirm you are a legal voter in that election.
You now have 3 specific ways of security. If the weight is off, you recount the chits by weight and autofeed through a counter like sorting coins. The feeder would sort out the ones that are mis-marked as well, and also can validate against the number of voters who recieved chits. The individuals vote is never recorded to a specific person
If you looked at enough Congressional district maps, you'd understand that Gerrymandering is RAMPANT on BOTH sides. This isn't surprising in the LEAST that it happens, because it's been going on but NOBODY is saying anything about it.
They should add calling someone a fascist as an addendum to Godwin's Law, because that's all you're doing at that point is invoking the same mentality with different words.
Agreed. There's a lot of discussion about life expectancy and who's "better" in healthcare by nation. Life expectancy and quality of healthcare are not necessarily something that goes hand-in-hand. It is not at all accurate to say that Euro and CA healthcare is "ahead" of healthcare ANYWHERE just because people live longer in one country vs another. You're equating them together erroneously using this metric. There are many reasons the life expectancy is different, among them are obesity, gun deaths (which are used in the calculations), accident rates, etc. Just pinning it to "socialised/universal healthcare is better" is not accurate at all, either. If this were the case, then people wouldn't be coming to the U.S. from Europe and Canada to get treated, they could simply wait in line for their turn in their own socialist utopian country waiting on that "free" healthcare that isn't free at all after you look at their tax rates. You pay for that healthcare somewhere, NOTHING is "free". A lot of the rankings you read about take COST as a measure of how "good" a healthcare system is. This is misleading because it totally discounts the actual healthcare (and it's results) and focuses on the profit motive that is somehow now an "evil bad thing(tm)" that must be a disqualifier and somehow "detrimental", even if the actions taken in the US and Canada by doctors in each were exactly the same, the US would be ranked lower SIMPLY on the costs alone. This is a bullshit metric to use. When talking about costs of healthcare, ask anyone this question: "Would you rather be poor and alive, or rich and dead." I think anyone would pick the former rather than the latter. Now do I think healthcare costs too much in the US? Sure. But there's other factors involved besides "evil profiteering capitalist pigs", you have the FDA, the Federal Government with their legal requirements, unnecessary legislation, insurance companies and hidden pricing from healthcare providers, companies who gouge way more for their products that they sell to medical vs everyone else, doctors who practice immensely unnecessary "defensive medicine" because of overly litigious people and lawyers, corrupt people committing fraud with medicare, pharmaceutical companies charging insane prices for products that cost mere pennies to produce... the list goes on and on. But using life expectancy as a basis to claim healthcare is better isn't a very good yardstick.
Respecttfully: NO. You're 100% wrong. Again, the PEOPLE designed it. There wasn't what we know now as a US "government" at the time other than the British-created governments to which the colonies were abolishing and wanting to create a new governmental order. The Constitution was written to define the limits of the new goverment's rights against the people, not the other way around. In fact, it started being written DURING the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Repeat after me: In America, the PEOPLE tell the GOVERNMENT what RIGHTS the GOVERNMENT has. Not the other way around. That's not how our country works.
Read up on "Enumerated Powers" in the US Constitution and understand the Framers wrote the Constitution as a set of NEGATIVE LIBERTIES for the GOVERNMENT.
(caps for emphasis, not shouting)
You obviously don't understand American history, the right to free speech wasn't granted to us by government, the ability to limit speech that was already free away from the government. The U.S. Constitution was designed to tell the *Government* what it can and cannot do. In fact, the whole document is a LIMIT on government that has been chipped away at for the last 200 years by power mongering authoritarians who wish to return us to a Feudal state.
Rocket League is basically "Soccer using Remote Controlled Cars that can do all sorts of tricks", it's an awesomely fun game that has a huge following.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to lower the ban hammer, how about you hippies ban marijuana cigarettes too. Anyone who disagrees with this statement is a bigoted, hypocritical racist heterophobic cisphobic blah blah blah.... /liberal mode off
Only the government will tolerate their own fiat currency backed by nothing. Gangsters hate competition.
If those funds came from Trump corporation coffers it would be a personal or business expenditure, not a campaign one. The Campaign coffers, however, cannot pay hush money and NOT report it.
Incorrect. It is illegal if you make the payments using money from the Campaign funds and do not disclose it. It is NOT illegal if you do it from your OWN personal funds and do not disclose it. There's a big difference. Trump did it from his own funds, it had been an ongoing issue for a few years prior. And the idea that it's to "influence an election" is entirely subjective based on those criteria. Paying for a nice suit or a haircut or tanning or dental work to influence your own election for example, would be considered illegal if paid for by the Campaign, but not out of the candidate's own pocket. It's the same thing with hush money. It's not normally taken to this extent, even Obama had campaign violations and no one took it to this level. This is entirely a political hatchet job. It's a partisan attempt to unseat a president. Nothing more, nothing less.
Most Americans support your argument if you agree to use and support ONLY the word "LEGAL" or "DOCUMENTED" in front of every iteration of immigrant or "immigration" you utter in regards to people who would come here. People in this country who love the rule of law are NOT against LEGAL immigration or LEGAL immigrants... That's the difference.
Here are the problems with your argument:
... NO NO NO NO NO NO HELL FRICKIN' NO!!! You are NOT entitled to stay in the country if you entered illegally. GAME OVER, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars, YOU LOSE! Crying about it or "think of the children" will NOT change the law or the consequences. They were COUNTING on pussies like you when they entered the country illegally!!!
1) Illegally entering the country is a crime. It all starts with this. Nothing you do, nothing you say, nothing you think, no amount of "but muh chillins!" feel-good argument will change the fact that you STARTED WITH A CRIMINAL ACT. This alone invalidates EVERY OTHER SINGLE ARGUMENT made.
2) You're assuming that if they don't get caught, they have a right to be here. Again, fallacious argument. See point #1.
3) I guarantee that a Mexican family illegally crossing the border 12 years later aren't calling themselves "American", they'll identify as "Mexican", or whatever flavor of liberal hyphenation or euphemism you want to foist on us, like "undocumented" or "immigrant". The problem is legally, they are aliens, and illegal status due to the fact they are not here with the permission or authorization of the US Government. Nothing you do or say will change that. See point #1.
4) The husband working is already breaking ANOTHER set of laws regarding employment in the country, and those employing him are ALSO breaking the law. If you are here illegally, then everything you DO is now illegally done as well: working, living, voting, whatever... SEE POINT #1. (Are we sensing a pattern here yet?)
5) I guarantee you the parents have NOT been paying the appropriate taxes any citizen or legal status national would be paying, or if they are attempting to do so, they're probably committing the crimes of forgery, identity theft, or misreprensenting themselves to the government in some way. So see point #1
6) Just because they "identify" as American doesn't MAKE them American. As Tyler Durden says: "Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Any argument in this vein is an argument trying to appeal to your better nature, when it should infuriate the listener, and if you're an actual law-abiding "came in the right way" immigrant, it should make you even MORE pissed off, because, they entered ILLEGALLY. So again... SEE POINT #1!
7) Your statement about just giving them the test to become citizens is a slap in the face of everyone who comes here legally. It invalidates the rule of law, rewards illegal behavior, and is the equivalent of letting a bank robber go free with the money after being caught. It's not right, it provides NO deterrent to future incursions into the country, and quite simply, is not how this whole legal immigration thing works! So again, see point #1
I swear, every time I see arguments like yours, it makes my blood boil that people are that weak-willed and cowardly that they can't actually stand up for the law and their country, for fear of being called a "racist" or a "bigot". It's not about race, it's not about bigotry (at least for those of us who want the law enforced). Maybe for the more liberal amongst the country who feel they can be so morally superior by having their own brown slaves working as their nannies or lawnscapers and warning them when "la migra" comes a'callin!
You guys are all like "meh, they got over the border, it's too hard to send them back so they should just stay" (See Point #1 above)
NO!
How about you put on your big boy pants, stop being such a god damn wimp, and be brave enough to say: "This is America, we have rules and laws that we all must follow. If you break the rules/laws, you will have to suffer the consequences. You broke our rules, you entered illegally, it doesn't matter if you and your children were here for 5 days or 5 years, GET THE HELL OUT and COME BACK IN THE RIGHT WAY!" It is not immoral to PUNISH the GUILTY. It is not CRUEL to punish the GUILTY. Deportation is the consequences of illegal entry. You broke the law. You have to pay the penalty, and the penalty is GTFO!
How about you go back and do some actual reading of the laws of our northern and southern neighbors: They actually ENFORCE their immigration laws!
Even if anyone Can only buy just a lousy handgun then it is still sick!
I was exaggerating to underline my point
Any civilized country have strict rules for firearms!
Actually, when people hear statements like yours, what they really hear is "Firearms should be banned in a civilized country".
Granted, it's a lofty goal to have a safe society if you take away everyone's guns, but it's also childishly naive to think that'll ever happen.
What you're really saying is the rallying cry of the oppressor. History has shown that when a government disarms it's people, that it is in the interests of control. Control leads to atrocity against the people BY the government... EVERY... SINGLE... TIME. The U.S. Constitution has enshrined the right to keep and bear arms for this very reason.
Don't believe me? Why don't you crack open a history book sometime. Gun Confiscation aka "gun control" measures always are used so that the oppressing regime has the weapons, and no resistance to their dictates... Sure, you're pushing ideas so "common sense" that they have to be enforced, at the point of a gun. Eventually it'll degenerate into pograms of control, discrimination, oppression, hatred, and death, whether it's ideological or racial. Power corrupts.... as the saying goes...
I also find it highly interesting that most dystopian fiction always has the common theme that oppressive regimes always practice control over people by robbing them of the means to protect themselves from oppression.
I wonder what that says to progressives and their gun control efforts?
One could also argue putting ice actually helps prevent overconsumption of wasteful calories as well, by watering down the drink.
Thank you, finally I see someone pointing out the obvious flaw in the "wage gap" issue: It's not that women are paid less than men for the same jobs (that's been illegal since the legislation passed in the 60's), but the actual *earnings* that are different due to behaviors and decisions made.
I work for casinos. I know for a fact you can use a credit card to get cash which then you can play with. You just can't use the card to directly buy the chips without cash. But by extension, you can buy chips with a credit card, you just have an extra step to go through to get it. It's really semantics in the end.
I wouldn't call a Democrat Congress more "fiscally responsible" than the Republicans, either. Not when Democrat socialist policies increased the debt by 9+ Trillion under a Democrat-controlled Congress for most of Democrat Barack Obama's term either. People can try to blame the President, or even a party in particular, but in reality, it's Congress's spending problem that's the core issue. We need a balanced budget amendment. We need a political class that doesn't treat the public like an ATM and grant largesse under the guise of "social justice" to buy votes.
Actually, the President isn't responsible for the deficits entirely, because it's the Congress that controls the purse strings. A more accurate statement is that deficits are caused by Congress, who votes on them and passes them. http://goliards.us/adelphi/def... Here's an interesting display for you. Take from it what you will, but I'm not entirely convinced that the problem is "Republican" or "Democrat". I would argue that the problem is merely a result of politics.
I would use chits with a specific weight, that you write the number of the candidate on the chit, which is then fed through a computerized counter that reads the number on the chit, into a weighed container clearly labelled for the candidate's number. You obtain a chit by verifying your identity using your state-issued ID or other recognized form of identifying information to affirm you are a legal voter in that election. You now have 3 specific ways of security. If the weight is off, you recount the chits by weight and autofeed through a counter like sorting coins. The feeder would sort out the ones that are mis-marked as well, and also can validate against the number of voters who recieved chits. The individuals vote is never recorded to a specific person
Or the doctor from that movie diagnosing the climate: "I see what your problem is, your climate's all fucked up and your shit's out of whack" lol
Yet people are suing gun manufacturers using the same logic (selling them the gun that kills someone else)
If you looked at enough Congressional district maps, you'd understand that Gerrymandering is RAMPANT on BOTH sides. This isn't surprising in the LEAST that it happens, because it's been going on but NOBODY is saying anything about it.
Then apply this same logic to gun ownership.
They should add calling someone a fascist as an addendum to Godwin's Law, because that's all you're doing at that point is invoking the same mentality with different words.
Agreed. There's a lot of discussion about life expectancy and who's "better" in healthcare by nation. Life expectancy and quality of healthcare are not necessarily something that goes hand-in-hand. It is not at all accurate to say that Euro and CA healthcare is "ahead" of healthcare ANYWHERE just because people live longer in one country vs another. You're equating them together erroneously using this metric. There are many reasons the life expectancy is different, among them are obesity, gun deaths (which are used in the calculations), accident rates, etc. Just pinning it to "socialised/universal healthcare is better" is not accurate at all, either. If this were the case, then people wouldn't be coming to the U.S. from Europe and Canada to get treated, they could simply wait in line for their turn in their own socialist utopian country waiting on that "free" healthcare that isn't free at all after you look at their tax rates. You pay for that healthcare somewhere, NOTHING is "free". A lot of the rankings you read about take COST as a measure of how "good" a healthcare system is. This is misleading because it totally discounts the actual healthcare (and it's results) and focuses on the profit motive that is somehow now an "evil bad thing(tm)" that must be a disqualifier and somehow "detrimental", even if the actions taken in the US and Canada by doctors in each were exactly the same, the US would be ranked lower SIMPLY on the costs alone. This is a bullshit metric to use. When talking about costs of healthcare, ask anyone this question: "Would you rather be poor and alive, or rich and dead." I think anyone would pick the former rather than the latter. Now do I think healthcare costs too much in the US? Sure. But there's other factors involved besides "evil profiteering capitalist pigs", you have the FDA, the Federal Government with their legal requirements, unnecessary legislation, insurance companies and hidden pricing from healthcare providers, companies who gouge way more for their products that they sell to medical vs everyone else, doctors who practice immensely unnecessary "defensive medicine" because of overly litigious people and lawyers, corrupt people committing fraud with medicare, pharmaceutical companies charging insane prices for products that cost mere pennies to produce... the list goes on and on. But using life expectancy as a basis to claim healthcare is better isn't a very good yardstick.
Ban everyone. Then no one will be subjected to Facebook. :)
I'm really surprised no one has said "It's a Sex Dungeon" lol Those ancient peoples were kinky. Just look at the Kama Sutra.
Ok I'm done with you, you obviously aren't an American so you're not an authority on how our government works, or you're a troll. Take your pick.
Respecttfully: NO. You're 100% wrong. Again, the PEOPLE designed it. There wasn't what we know now as a US "government" at the time other than the British-created governments to which the colonies were abolishing and wanting to create a new governmental order. The Constitution was written to define the limits of the new goverment's rights against the people, not the other way around. In fact, it started being written DURING the Revolutionary War against Britain. Repeat after me: In America, the PEOPLE tell the GOVERNMENT what RIGHTS the GOVERNMENT has. Not the other way around. That's not how our country works. Read up on "Enumerated Powers" in the US Constitution and understand the Framers wrote the Constitution as a set of NEGATIVE LIBERTIES for the GOVERNMENT. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)
You obviously don't understand American history, the right to free speech wasn't granted to us by government, the ability to limit speech that was already free away from the government. The U.S. Constitution was designed to tell the *Government* what it can and cannot do. In fact, the whole document is a LIMIT on government that has been chipped away at for the last 200 years by power mongering authoritarians who wish to return us to a Feudal state.
Rocket League is basically "Soccer using Remote Controlled Cars that can do all sorts of tricks", it's an awesomely fun game that has a huge following.