I did flesh it out...
There's nothing to say that even if you pay your taxes, that you are "paying enough" according to the government, if they decide willy nilly that you "owe" them. If there's one aspect of government that seems to have things backwards sometimes, it's the tax man... They'll *declare* you owe so much, and it's up to *you* to prove you don't. It goes against the very nature of the legal process as it is commonly accepted. With the tax man, you're guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. Have you ever been audited? Have you ever been in the crosshairs of the tax man? I have. I know from experience, they tried to tell me I owed them tens of thousands (according to their math), when in fact they owed ME. And then weaseled OUT of it. Through an technicality. What's worse, is I wouldn't have known that they owed me if they hadn't gotten greedy and came at me for more! But it didn't matter to them that I was right and they were wrong, because from the beginning it's an adversarial position of power that they try to intimidate and terrorize you into giving up and giving them what they think you owe, not the other way around. That's what he meant by "First they came for Apple...." because they could come after anyone... you may be next.
The problem with taxing wealth is that you get into a double/triple etc taxation situation, paying taxes on money you've already been taxed on. That's a huge can of worms that nobody would like to see, and believe it or not, wouldn't generate the "revenue" that the government would need anyway.
The real solution to this problem is start controlling government spending, like parents with a child's allowance. It's OUR responsibility to hold government accountable and rule by representation IN the government. The government is OUR property, not the other way around.
You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
Did you really just equate Apple having to pay taxes with the Holocaust?
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, Godwin!
Please tell me you didn't just go into SJW overreaction mode?
First they came for Apple... THEN they'll come for YOU... For Taxes, mate!!! He's making a very clear point... That they "declare" you "owe" them, Becuz Gubbmint! And then all of a sudden, Becuz Gubbmint! You owe them, no trial, no soup for you!
Learn to understand context, my brother, connnnnnteeeeexxxt.... Breathe, brother, breathe!
There's nothing wrong with not having your racial makeup of your company according to population percentages, and people need to stop thinking that there's something wrong with a company if there is.
The current SJW/PoliticallyCorrect/RacistLiberals need to get a frickin' life and go shut their little liberal mouths on this whole "diversity" BS. The problems I see with hiring for "diversity" is that it's based on a fallacious set of arguments, that are racist in and of themselves. (Like the notion that minorities are some poor disadvantaged souls who need the White SJW's "help" as if they're helpless children who need patronizing "whitey" to help them... ) It's insulting and contributes nothing to society.
First, you have this silly notion that having "diversity" of racial makeup in a company is somehow "required" in order for them to be "righteous" in the eyes of the liberal SJW mindset, which is only for their ego purposes anyway, when all it ends up being is a circlejerk for them. ("See how gracious and unracist I am, I made that evil company hire more Black people! Somebody pat me on the back because I'm so special!")
Speaking of "proportional to population" nonsense, WHY oh WHY do people still use this nonsense measurement? Please, show me where the law states you have to have a proportionate amount of people in any company vs the general population in any company, OR ELSE? Exactly what is the "penalty" for having an "out of balance" proportion of people? What, you'll be ridiculed by SJW bullshit racists?
They're surely not using this measurement when it comes to the NFL or the NBA, so why do they get a break but corporate America doesn't?
It's only "unfair" all because of the misguided SJW mindset of "well, their skin color is different thus it's not fair if they're not represented" equality of OUTCOMES instead of equality of access.
Seriously, government needs to get a clue...
What makes anyone think that a law violating someone's 5th (or Section 11c, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada) Amendment rights to compel them to give evidence against themselves is a good idea?
How many politicians have used "i do not recall" as an answer to a direct question under oath to get out of wrongdoing? What about that law, requiring all public servants to NOT be able to use "i do not recall" or something along those lines as a way to escape justice?
to invade my privacy and the privacy of the general public at whim...
WHEN THEY ARE ABOVE REPROACH AND FULLY TRANSPARENT TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
How about they prove they are responsible and honest enough to be given access to that information only when it is absolutely required, and not used for things like blackmail, intimidation, theft, graft, and political influence?
When you have people like Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch walking around enabling federal crimes on scales that boggle the average person's mind and get away with it scot-free? When they can't even adhere to the same standards they want to impose on the "unwashed masses"?
Until then, how about you just do some good ol' fashioned detective work!? Mmmkay, Mr Police Man?
Ok, I'm not a super huge fan of Microsoft, but this sort of ruffles the feathers a little.
Here's what I say to people that spew this kind of nonsense:
If you want an operating system that is really an afterthought and more like a console gaming system in it's implementation: go Apple OSX. Why? Because if you had absolute control over +95% of the hardware configuration, you can make an uber stable OS tailored to that configuration, not unlike Windows Embedded. If people think OSX is so superior, then why doesn't it have the broad out of the box hardware support Windows and Linux do? I'm sorry but out of the box support that *just works* means a LOT, but this mindset of "It Just Works(TM)" of the Apple crowd is condescending BS... Try loading OSX on any box and come back and tell me "It just works".
If you want to spend a lot of time going back to the command line and monkeying about in text files to configure your OS as a downside, BUT have a damn stable ecosystem with limited or buggy bolted-on support for a lot of AAA Windows-centric games, go with Linux. Sure, there are games on Linux, but honestly, most of the games write for Windows first, and Linux is an afterthought for a lot of studios. Plus, there's the additional elitist mentality you can then exude because you're not one of those Micro$oft drones, right?
I look at it like this: Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses. Hell, I even like OS/2 and BeOS. There's no reason to be snotty because someone likes Windows any more than Linux/OSX.
Merriam-Webster's definition of Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Not to sound too 'right wing', but.... I wouldn't be throwing the word "fascist" around lightly unless you can defend it. One could argue that Obama is a Fascist using that definition, with the authoritarian way he uses presidential power, how his administration has picked industries to destroy (coal), races to favor (see the race-based reactions to Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, and the lack of law enforcement against the Black Panthers for their activities for context) and how redistribution of wealth is an oft-stated goal of his, as well as forcing LGBTQ agendas on the school system through executive fiat, and how the mainstream media has an obvious bias for him, which helps to destroy his opposition.
You're exactly right. Too many people outside of politics are given way too much weight in their opinions about politics. Case in point: Why would Susan Serandon, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Lady Gaga (!!!), or Stephen Hawking even be considered an authority of who would be "presidential" or even do the job well? Why should anyone even LISTEN to them on those matters unless they are actually involved directly in the decision making process of the Presidency? What, because they support a Democrat? Suddenly they're somehow superior? Please... give me a break.
I wouldn't care if they went back and prosecuted Republicans OR Democrats on this behavior, *everyone* needs to be accountable.
It sure would go far to show the public that government is accountable to the people and not above the law.
----------------
Hillary for Prison '16
He's definitely right. look at the deferred deportation program for illegal aliens... or the fact they release illegal aliens from prison INTO the US instead of deporting them.
This the most reasonable response to any "climate change is settled science" nonsense argument that I've seen written down. I tend to agree with you, I think there are more factors at play than just CO2 in the atmosphere. And the chicken littles of the current Church of Climate Change need to realize this.
Actually, that's been debunked. Areas with Voter ID have shown INCREASED black vote. Just google "voter id increases minority turnout" and even the left-leaning "Politifact" will agree with my statement.
And your answer scares the crap out of me... you're the perfect example of what corrupt orwellian governments eventually want:
Good little trained urban drones for the machine who question nothing and step in line. In a cashless society your money will be electronic, your identity will be electronic, your movements trackable at all times because you use a device (your metro pass) for travel that is tied electronically to you. Your Passport is already electronic, your ID is already electronic (since we won't trust that piece of paper that doesn't have your picture on it that says you were born)
Yes, with one stroke of a key your money disappears, and you can't do a thing to stop it. Now you can't purchase anything, even food... Now you're homeless.
With a brief click, your metro pass becomes useless... your mobility goes out the window. Now you have to walk everywhere.
And you can't fly, because now your passport is listed on some watch list database that you have no recourse against, nor have the right to see why they put you on it, much less get you off it, so you can't work internationally.
With another stroke, your medical history disappears. Another, your identity disappears.
All it will then take is a small squad of men in the middle of the night with a black bag to put over your head, and then you really do disappear.
Are you concerned now? Oh, it couldn't happen? It's never happened? People haven't been "disappeared" by their governments EVER?
The other distinction is with businesses, if you don't produce something of value for the investment, you fail, and you go out of business.
With government, they demand you invest more or go to prison, and still produce nothing in the end of value.
You mean an accountable, run-like-a-business-that-wants-to-make-a-profit government? Because that's exactly what a government needs to be run like.
They need to be of the mindset that we *demand* a return (something good to actually come out) on our *investment* (taxes), and waste of government funds should be treated as theft (from the people).
Right now, most people see Government as this big hole with a fire in the middle of it that you throw money in. You can feel the burn (pardon the inadvertent Bernie Sanders reference) and see your money at work (burning), yet the benefits are strikingly short lived.
The time for "feelings" to run things is over. It's time for law and order, returns on the money we give our government to accomplish certain tasks, like building bridges, walls, roads, feeding the poor, taking care of the helpless, defending our nation and its borders... Instead of being told WE are to do as WE are told by a government that is OUR employee.
No doubt. An 8 digit would have explained the article without using personal pronouns in the third person and then thrown poo at the 7 digit poster....
I think this could be also applied to those "paid for" political ads that attack politicians based on any reason. Maybe this would be a potential weapon for any member of a political party to use against their competition?
I mean, look at the possibilities, they are designed to be repeatedly broadcast to spread their messages that offend or intentionally cause "harm" to the politician described within, right?
"Don't vote for Bob Everyman, he's a right wing Republican" might offend Bob because he felt he was a middle of the road Republican? How about bloggers that were saying stupid things about Bush, like "he hates black people."
This law is so overly broad you could orbit the sun through the loopholes.
I hate to go all Dick Dawkins, but.... actually, not all athiests would fight for religious books.
I'm an athiest, and I think that the Bible and the Quran are offensive works.
They both talk about very horrible subjects and points of view:
1) Kill someone who isn't your religion.
2) Discriminate against those who aren't of your religion.
3) Do any horrible thing you want in the name of your religion to the non-believers and women, because in the end, you are righteous, you are a man, and they are not.
Granted, I may be overly broad and overstating some things there, but if you look at history, it proves me right. Those three things *alone* are enough to make any book abhorrent. But, put a religion to them and they suddenly become "protected free speech". Hogwash, pishposh, and poppycock!
Religious books are the first ones that need to be restricted, as they teach ignorance and blind faith, rather than reason and independent thinking.
Governmental accountability is an oxymoron.
If the point of the Government is to enact and enforce laws, then what's the point of them even obeying the laws they enact if they can go back later and claim sovereign immunity?
It's hipocrisy at it's finest!
Slashdot Mirror
I did flesh it out... There's nothing to say that even if you pay your taxes, that you are "paying enough" according to the government, if they decide willy nilly that you "owe" them. If there's one aspect of government that seems to have things backwards sometimes, it's the tax man... They'll *declare* you owe so much, and it's up to *you* to prove you don't. It goes against the very nature of the legal process as it is commonly accepted. With the tax man, you're guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. Have you ever been audited? Have you ever been in the crosshairs of the tax man? I have. I know from experience, they tried to tell me I owed them tens of thousands (according to their math), when in fact they owed ME. And then weaseled OUT of it. Through an technicality. What's worse, is I wouldn't have known that they owed me if they hadn't gotten greedy and came at me for more! But it didn't matter to them that I was right and they were wrong, because from the beginning it's an adversarial position of power that they try to intimidate and terrorize you into giving up and giving them what they think you owe, not the other way around. That's what he meant by "First they came for Apple...." because they could come after anyone... you may be next.
The problem with taxing wealth is that you get into a double/triple etc taxation situation, paying taxes on money you've already been taxed on. That's a huge can of worms that nobody would like to see, and believe it or not, wouldn't generate the "revenue" that the government would need anyway.
The real solution to this problem is start controlling government spending, like parents with a child's allowance. It's OUR responsibility to hold government accountable and rule by representation IN the government. The government is OUR property, not the other way around.
You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
Did you really just equate Apple having to pay taxes with the Holocaust?
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, Godwin!
Please tell me you didn't just go into SJW overreaction mode?
First they came for Apple... THEN they'll come for YOU... For Taxes, mate!!! He's making a very clear point... That they "declare" you "owe" them, Becuz Gubbmint! And then all of a sudden, Becuz Gubbmint! You owe them, no trial, no soup for you!
Learn to understand context, my brother, connnnnnteeeeexxxt.... Breathe, brother, breathe!
There's nothing wrong with not having your racial makeup of your company according to population percentages, and people need to stop thinking that there's something wrong with a company if there is.
The current SJW/PoliticallyCorrect/RacistLiberals need to get a frickin' life and go shut their little liberal mouths on this whole "diversity" BS. The problems I see with hiring for "diversity" is that it's based on a fallacious set of arguments, that are racist in and of themselves. (Like the notion that minorities are some poor disadvantaged souls who need the White SJW's "help" as if they're helpless children who need patronizing "whitey" to help them... ) It's insulting and contributes nothing to society.
First, you have this silly notion that having "diversity" of racial makeup in a company is somehow "required" in order for them to be "righteous" in the eyes of the liberal SJW mindset, which is only for their ego purposes anyway, when all it ends up being is a circlejerk for them. ("See how gracious and unracist I am, I made that evil company hire more Black people! Somebody pat me on the back because I'm so special!")
Speaking of "proportional to population" nonsense, WHY oh WHY do people still use this nonsense measurement? Please, show me where the law states you have to have a proportionate amount of people in any company vs the general population in any company, OR ELSE? Exactly what is the "penalty" for having an "out of balance" proportion of people? What, you'll be ridiculed by SJW bullshit racists?
They're surely not using this measurement when it comes to the NFL or the NBA, so why do they get a break but corporate America doesn't?
It's only "unfair" all because of the misguided SJW mindset of "well, their skin color is different thus it's not fair if they're not represented" equality of OUTCOMES instead of equality of access.
Seriously, government needs to get a clue... What makes anyone think that a law violating someone's 5th (or Section 11c, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada) Amendment rights to compel them to give evidence against themselves is a good idea? How many politicians have used "i do not recall" as an answer to a direct question under oath to get out of wrongdoing? What about that law, requiring all public servants to NOT be able to use "i do not recall" or something along those lines as a way to escape justice?
to invade my privacy and the privacy of the general public at whim... WHEN THEY ARE ABOVE REPROACH AND FULLY TRANSPARENT TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
How about they prove they are responsible and honest enough to be given access to that information only when it is absolutely required, and not used for things like blackmail, intimidation, theft, graft, and political influence?
When you have people like Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch walking around enabling federal crimes on scales that boggle the average person's mind and get away with it scot-free? When they can't even adhere to the same standards they want to impose on the "unwashed masses"?
Until then, how about you just do some good ol' fashioned detective work!? Mmmkay, Mr Police Man?
Uhhhhh.... damn fine trolling. I applaud you.
Ok, I'm not a super huge fan of Microsoft, but this sort of ruffles the feathers a little.
Here's what I say to people that spew this kind of nonsense:
If you want an operating system that is really an afterthought and more like a console gaming system in it's implementation: go Apple OSX. Why? Because if you had absolute control over +95% of the hardware configuration, you can make an uber stable OS tailored to that configuration, not unlike Windows Embedded. If people think OSX is so superior, then why doesn't it have the broad out of the box hardware support Windows and Linux do? I'm sorry but out of the box support that *just works* means a LOT, but this mindset of "It Just Works(TM)" of the Apple crowd is condescending BS... Try loading OSX on any box and come back and tell me "It just works".
If you want to spend a lot of time going back to the command line and monkeying about in text files to configure your OS as a downside, BUT have a damn stable ecosystem with limited or buggy bolted-on support for a lot of AAA Windows-centric games, go with Linux. Sure, there are games on Linux, but honestly, most of the games write for Windows first, and Linux is an afterthought for a lot of studios. Plus, there's the additional elitist mentality you can then exude because you're not one of those Micro$oft drones, right?
I look at it like this: Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses. Hell, I even like OS/2 and BeOS. There's no reason to be snotty because someone likes Windows any more than Linux/OSX.
Polls are pretty good indicators... until the fraud kicks in.
There can be ONLY ONE!!!
Not unlike the Democrats, either. At least, not when they're exiting a plane under sniper fire in Bosnia, right?
Merriam-Webster's definition of Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Not to sound too 'right wing', but.... I wouldn't be throwing the word "fascist" around lightly unless you can defend it. One could argue that Obama is a Fascist using that definition, with the authoritarian way he uses presidential power, how his administration has picked industries to destroy (coal), races to favor (see the race-based reactions to Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, and the lack of law enforcement against the Black Panthers for their activities for context) and how redistribution of wealth is an oft-stated goal of his, as well as forcing LGBTQ agendas on the school system through executive fiat, and how the mainstream media has an obvious bias for him, which helps to destroy his opposition.
You're exactly right. Too many people outside of politics are given way too much weight in their opinions about politics. Case in point: Why would Susan Serandon, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Lady Gaga (!!!), or Stephen Hawking even be considered an authority of who would be "presidential" or even do the job well? Why should anyone even LISTEN to them on those matters unless they are actually involved directly in the decision making process of the Presidency? What, because they support a Democrat? Suddenly they're somehow superior? Please... give me a break.
I wouldn't care if they went back and prosecuted Republicans OR Democrats on this behavior, *everyone* needs to be accountable. It sure would go far to show the public that government is accountable to the people and not above the law. ---------------- Hillary for Prison '16
He's definitely right. look at the deferred deportation program for illegal aliens... or the fact they release illegal aliens from prison INTO the US instead of deporting them.
This the most reasonable response to any "climate change is settled science" nonsense argument that I've seen written down. I tend to agree with you, I think there are more factors at play than just CO2 in the atmosphere. And the chicken littles of the current Church of Climate Change need to realize this.
Actually, that's been debunked. Areas with Voter ID have shown INCREASED black vote. Just google "voter id increases minority turnout" and even the left-leaning "Politifact" will agree with my statement.
And your answer scares the crap out of me... you're the perfect example of what corrupt orwellian governments eventually want: Good little trained urban drones for the machine who question nothing and step in line. In a cashless society your money will be electronic, your identity will be electronic, your movements trackable at all times because you use a device (your metro pass) for travel that is tied electronically to you. Your Passport is already electronic, your ID is already electronic (since we won't trust that piece of paper that doesn't have your picture on it that says you were born) Yes, with one stroke of a key your money disappears, and you can't do a thing to stop it. Now you can't purchase anything, even food... Now you're homeless. With a brief click, your metro pass becomes useless... your mobility goes out the window. Now you have to walk everywhere. And you can't fly, because now your passport is listed on some watch list database that you have no recourse against, nor have the right to see why they put you on it, much less get you off it, so you can't work internationally. With another stroke, your medical history disappears. Another, your identity disappears. All it will then take is a small squad of men in the middle of the night with a black bag to put over your head, and then you really do disappear. Are you concerned now? Oh, it couldn't happen? It's never happened? People haven't been "disappeared" by their governments EVER?
The other distinction is with businesses, if you don't produce something of value for the investment, you fail, and you go out of business. With government, they demand you invest more or go to prison, and still produce nothing in the end of value.
You mean an accountable, run-like-a-business-that-wants-to-make-a-profit government? Because that's exactly what a government needs to be run like. They need to be of the mindset that we *demand* a return (something good to actually come out) on our *investment* (taxes), and waste of government funds should be treated as theft (from the people). Right now, most people see Government as this big hole with a fire in the middle of it that you throw money in. You can feel the burn (pardon the inadvertent Bernie Sanders reference) and see your money at work (burning), yet the benefits are strikingly short lived. The time for "feelings" to run things is over. It's time for law and order, returns on the money we give our government to accomplish certain tasks, like building bridges, walls, roads, feeding the poor, taking care of the helpless, defending our nation and its borders... Instead of being told WE are to do as WE are told by a government that is OUR employee.
Unicorn!! Uuuuuuuunicorn!!
No doubt. An 8 digit would have explained the article without using personal pronouns in the third person and then thrown poo at the 7 digit poster....
I think this could be also applied to those "paid for" political ads that attack politicians based on any reason. Maybe this would be a potential weapon for any member of a political party to use against their competition? I mean, look at the possibilities, they are designed to be repeatedly broadcast to spread their messages that offend or intentionally cause "harm" to the politician described within, right? "Don't vote for Bob Everyman, he's a right wing Republican" might offend Bob because he felt he was a middle of the road Republican? How about bloggers that were saying stupid things about Bush, like "he hates black people." This law is so overly broad you could orbit the sun through the loopholes.
I hate to go all Dick Dawkins, but.... actually, not all athiests would fight for religious books. I'm an athiest, and I think that the Bible and the Quran are offensive works. They both talk about very horrible subjects and points of view: 1) Kill someone who isn't your religion. 2) Discriminate against those who aren't of your religion. 3) Do any horrible thing you want in the name of your religion to the non-believers and women, because in the end, you are righteous, you are a man, and they are not. Granted, I may be overly broad and overstating some things there, but if you look at history, it proves me right. Those three things *alone* are enough to make any book abhorrent. But, put a religion to them and they suddenly become "protected free speech". Hogwash, pishposh, and poppycock! Religious books are the first ones that need to be restricted, as they teach ignorance and blind faith, rather than reason and independent thinking.
Governmental accountability is an oxymoron. If the point of the Government is to enact and enforce laws, then what's the point of them even obeying the laws they enact if they can go back later and claim sovereign immunity? It's hipocrisy at it's finest!