You're confused. The violent ones are the Sorros-funded pro-immigration groups that attack (white) people walking to and from Trump events. I know, it bothers you that there's video of such things, and endless calls from the left for such violence. But it's there, and your own breathless hatred is a perfect example of exactly how hypocritical progressives are on this subject. Your post is nothing but lazy, vitriolic ad hominem that goes out of its way to notice the hatred and violence that festers on the left, and which is actually applied to people they don't like.
Horrible crimes? The most condensed, distilled, unending cesspools of horrible crime in this country are found in a handful of cities that have been run - for decades - entirely by liberals at the executive and legislative levels. You want to elect someone who actively promises to do more of what the current administration has been doing for over 7 years to make those problems worse? Why?
But the parties, and what they embrace as contemporary policy priorities, change over time. Parties come and go entirely (as they've done in this country). People assemble into groups. That is perfectly natural, and of course they don't want to lose their voice or power, so they try to make that group as large as they can, even if it means compromising on things. A sufficiently sane "third" party would draw the same grouping as other parties did when they turned into what we happen to see as the two main parties today.
Actually, only about half of the people pay. Many blue collar types (since you mention them) pay very little or no federal income taxes at all, or even get cash "back" on the taxes they don't pay. A small minority of the other half pay the vast majority of all of the income taxes.
You'd assume most blue collar workers who do pay a shitload in taxes would be pissed by that line of thinking.
You really think that most blue collar workers, as they file their 1040EZ or have that HR Block guy in the kiosk at the mall do their taxes... don't check every box available to them that reduces their tax burden? That's what you think?
We had a chance with Sanders, but we squandered it.
No, we dodged a bullet. His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue. Even Hillary Clinton (who is currently doing her best in public to pretend she likes what Sanders stands for, because she's wildly pandering to low-information young people who want free stuff) says in private (audio recording just released!) that Sanders' supporters are unrealistic live-in-mom's-basement people who want free stuff and don't know what they're talking about. She may be an evil witch, but she's correct about that. Of course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.
only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency
That's because the other parties tend to run:
1) Avowed communists or other loons
2) Supposed doctors who believe in homeopathy
3) Would-be presidents who can't name a single leader of another country.
Why would such people every gain any traction with a majority of the people in the US? The certainly can't get together enough people to support their campaign operations at a level that makes them strongly visible in a country of hundreds of millions of people - because would-be supporters look at them, weigh their absurd positions against reality, and walk away.
followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better
It's idiotic trade deals and our tax code that have chased US companies out of the country.
And yes - the US can afford a rate of failed initiatives that parallel the small number of bankruptcies (relative to his hundreds of business ventures) on Trump's record. Because right now the US is nothing BUT a failing operation, financially. You get that, right? Debt has increased more during Obama's tenure than under all other presidents in history combined. The entire nation is essentially bankrupt and living on printed money and debt to places like China.
Ah, so because you can't actually address the point (about the difference between someone stopping the use of dangerous things on their private property in order to avoid the liability surrounding possible injuries to their other customers and frivolous law suits from people who hurt themselves skating in a retail store... and federal regulations requiring children to sign up for a publicly searchable federal database in order to use their toys), you just try to deflect with some lazy ad hominem. Is it REALLY too challenging to you to directly address the substance of the matter? Yes? I thought so. Because you really don't have a coherent point to make.
Meanwhile, people have no problem recognizing that yes, drones can cause harm, and want something done.
And what sort of harm are people referring to? Please be specific, and compare it to real-life activities that actually DO cause harm, since the rate of injury from the millions of drones in use is essentially zero. Explain how criminalizing the use of a 10-ounce plastic toy will make the public safer from the zero public injuries that result from their millions of uses... compared to, say, the people who are actually killed every year in hundreds of different recreational activities. Be specific, instead of citing strange off-topic references to three strikes laws (what's your point there, exactly - there is no "three strikes" issue here... the FAA can fine and jail you on your first use of a 10-ounce toy).
People don't want you to tell them nothing can be done.
Done about what? What actual ongoing issue are they trying to reverse? Kids learning things and having too much fun? That IS pretty awful. Or are you trying to find a way to make exposing children's names and addresses on a publicly-searchable federal database somehow reduce the current level of tragic injuries from zero to... less than zero?
You can go on wringing your hands and refusing to solve it, but it won't work.
I've already solved it: people aren't being injured and dying from the use of these toys. Are you still not clear on this? Why aren't you out demanding that something be done about soccer balls? Use of those ACTUALLY hurts and even kills people every year. You must be REALLY upset about that, if the use of plastic toys not hurting anybody has you this wound up.
You're just blathering on about something that is a concern for people.
No, I'm illustrating that it's people like you who are irrationally creating a concern over nothing. There are also people who are concerned about the threat of ongoing alien abductions. I suppose you're also working tirelessly to "do something" about that, right? Because it's exactly as much of an issue, and you can find someone uninformed and illogical to get worked up about that, too.
It won't ever be, because people see things differently.
Yes, people see things differently about vaccinations for polio, too. I suppose you're interested in soothing their nerves by cutting them some slack instead of simply pointing out that they're completely misunderstanding the situation? No? I see.
They don't want people able to harm them with drones, and yes, it does keep happening.
If this "keeps on happening," you should have no trouble listing reports of, say, one week's worth of injuries or other tragedies that represent a statistically meaningful cross section of the millions of hours of airtime in use. Focus, for the sake of clarity, on the 10-ounce toys that you feel should be criminalized. I'm sure you can come up with some high profile news articles showing the disasters that keep on happening as a result of their use. I'll fix some popcorn.
it is nonetheless a recognizable problem that needs solutions.
WHAT is a recognizable problem? Kids with 10-ounce plastic copters that have range of about 50 feet and can't fly in any kind of breeze? Please detail what sort of problem, requiring the federal government to fine a 14 year old kid $20,000 and subject them to jail time, you find those hundreds of thousands of toys are presenting. Tell you what: while you're digging for news showing some examples of the tragedies caused by those toys and how federal listing of those kids in a public-facing database would have prevented those problems... I'll let you round up to 16 ounces, so you have more tragedies to pick from. Since people have been flying such things for decades, you should easily be able to come up with hundreds of examples.
So no, they cannot legislate for model aircraft. It isn't that they did not bother to legislate for model aircraft. IT'S THAT THE LAW DOES NOT LET THEM.
As a point of clarity, here, the FAA doesn't legislate anything. They regulate, with statutory authority FROM the legislature. Regardless the law that congress passed to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense is exactly why the Obama administration took advantage of what amounts to a loophole - they didn't use the FAA to require this absurd toy registration - they used the Department Of Transportation, which isn't explicitly mentioned in the law that prevents the FAA from requiring kids to be placed on publicly searchable federal databases for having the audacity to use 10-ounce plastic toys.
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely.
Please cite the number of tragic injuries and other horribleness resulting per year from the use of 10-ounce plastic mall copter toys that warrants the criminalization of their unregistered use... compared to, say, the HOURLY rate of injuries in the country that result from, say, bicycle or skateboard use in public spaces. Really: get specific.
There are millions of "drones" in use with hundreds of millions of in-air hours booked. Surely there's a long parade of horrific accidents, injuries and death resulting from all of those millions of devices being operated? I'm carefully tuned into the topic, and no... it's not real. This absurd toy regulation scheme is completely disconnected from any real-world risk (and we now have YEARS of real-world experience to examine), and the only real risk that people have reason to think about (actual malicious operation) isn't ever going to be impacted by rules anyway - because bad guys think such things are hilarious.
OK, since you get out of the house so much, you've no doubt got lots of anecdotes and hopefully at least a few examples of the countless tragedies that have occurred because 14 year old kids with 10-ounce plastic copters from the mall kiosk weren't properly put in criminal jeopardy for failing to appear on a publicly searchable federal database of toy owners. There must be many, many injuries and deaths associated with this activity to warrant such a thing, right? Right?
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
There are now many millions of these toys in use, with hundreds of millions of hours in the air. Please cite your long list of examples of these toys being used in such a dangerous way that the long list of injuries and mayhem require a publicly-browsable federal registry of their owners and the criminalization and fining of kids who fail to register their 10 ounce plastic copter with the federal government.
More people are hurt using soccer balls, garden tools, and bicycles in a given day than have been hurt by anyone, ever, using a little plastic toy copter. Why is your first instinct to involve government control, lists, fees, and public databases of toy owners?
You genuinely believe that donations to the Clinton Foundation is what keeps them in power and unpunished? rofl
Why would I believe something that you made up in your own head to fight as a strawman? Oh, I get it. Because you're hoping that by distracting with that juvenile rhetorical technique, that people will forget that the Clintons DO in fact rake in millions of dollars for their own family and cronies (only a sliver of their foundation's revenue goes to anything other than internal paychecks and perks/expenses) in exchange for providing political access to those who pile on the cash. Of course you know this, and are trying to wish it away. Especially the part where she was encouraging that while she was in office, giving lots of access to those who paid her husband. But do carry on, and pretend it didn't happen. Feel better now?
You're undoing your own argument. Culturally, nobody gives a damn if you dance at the Jefferson Memorial, though some people might give a damn if a bunch of people wasted time writing and fussing about legislation to change that law that nobody cares about. On your other topics, you've made your own counterpoint. Culturally, the west has moved very quickly on areas like gay marriage. In practical terms, it's a done deal. There will be lots of little rough edges to clean up for a few years yet. Meanwhile, the Wahabbists and their ilk in the Middle East are going full-throttle backwards into the medieval days they miss so badly.
That's because the people who run around screaming about "social justice" do that primarily to distract from the fact that justice is the LAST thing they actually want. How about providing some examples of people who stamp their feet, shout down speakers at colleges, and otherwise rant away... being actually constructive people interested in open conversation rather than repression of anyone deemed insufficiently onboard with their agenda? Some specific examples to counter the well-earned broad brush of derision would be helpful. But what are you going to trot out... BLM? Occupy Everything? The Eat The Rich With Bernie Sanders movement? People who insist we switch all pronouns to "it?"
Meanwhile on Slashdot the only people actually acting like SJWs are the people who use the term SJW...
No. Calling out liberal totalitarians is not the same as seeking to actually DO the things (like squelching speech through the power of government) that liberal totalitarians actually do. Though you are performing the approved-by-liberal-elites correct response to being called out - immediately lie about it in hopes that will deflect reality.
Well, that's not entirely clear. If the Saudis bought them, then the Saudis financed them. If the Saudis bought them for less than what they cost, then either the manufacturer(s) subsidized some of the cost, or the taxpayers did. Which brings us to the fact that such expenses come out of the discretionary budget, which means it's essentially paid for almost entirely by income taxes or by debt that will be serviced by income taxes... and that means that only about half of the people in the country actually have a hand in financing such things because the other half pays no income taxes. And of the half that does pay them, of course a small portion of that group pays the majority of those taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted.
True.
There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.
No, there are people in military prison for doing FAR LESS.
You're confused. The violent ones are the Sorros-funded pro-immigration groups that attack (white) people walking to and from Trump events. I know, it bothers you that there's video of such things, and endless calls from the left for such violence. But it's there, and your own breathless hatred is a perfect example of exactly how hypocritical progressives are on this subject. Your post is nothing but lazy, vitriolic ad hominem that goes out of its way to notice the hatred and violence that festers on the left, and which is actually applied to people they don't like.
Horrible crimes? The most condensed, distilled, unending cesspools of horrible crime in this country are found in a handful of cities that have been run - for decades - entirely by liberals at the executive and legislative levels. You want to elect someone who actively promises to do more of what the current administration has been doing for over 7 years to make those problems worse? Why?
But the parties, and what they embrace as contemporary policy priorities, change over time. Parties come and go entirely (as they've done in this country). People assemble into groups. That is perfectly natural, and of course they don't want to lose their voice or power, so they try to make that group as large as they can, even if it means compromising on things. A sufficiently sane "third" party would draw the same grouping as other parties did when they turned into what we happen to see as the two main parties today.
What would you call them if they didn't take advantage of the deductions that give them that you-owe-nothing status?
But they still pay
Actually, only about half of the people pay. Many blue collar types (since you mention them) pay very little or no federal income taxes at all, or even get cash "back" on the taxes they don't pay. A small minority of the other half pay the vast majority of all of the income taxes.
You'd assume most blue collar workers who do pay a shitload in taxes would be pissed by that line of thinking.
You really think that most blue collar workers, as they file their 1040EZ or have that HR Block guy in the kiosk at the mall do their taxes ... don't check every box available to them that reduces their tax burden? That's what you think?
We had a chance with Sanders, but we squandered it.
No, we dodged a bullet. His entire world view is based on either pure fantasy, or on making productive people slaves to non-productive people and calling that a virtue. Even Hillary Clinton (who is currently doing her best in public to pretend she likes what Sanders stands for, because she's wildly pandering to low-information young people who want free stuff) says in private (audio recording just released!) that Sanders' supporters are unrealistic live-in-mom's-basement people who want free stuff and don't know what they're talking about. She may be an evil witch, but she's correct about that. Of course, being an evil witch, she'll still lie her ass off and pretend to embrace those people's wish lists long enough to get elected. Nothing new there.
only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency
That's because the other parties tend to run:
1) Avowed communists or other loons
2) Supposed doctors who believe in homeopathy
3) Would-be presidents who can't name a single leader of another country.
Why would such people every gain any traction with a majority of the people in the US? The certainly can't get together enough people to support their campaign operations at a level that makes them strongly visible in a country of hundreds of millions of people - because would-be supporters look at them, weigh their absurd positions against reality, and walk away.
followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better
It's idiotic trade deals and our tax code that have chased US companies out of the country.
And yes - the US can afford a rate of failed initiatives that parallel the small number of bankruptcies (relative to his hundreds of business ventures) on Trump's record. Because right now the US is nothing BUT a failing operation, financially. You get that, right? Debt has increased more during Obama's tenure than under all other presidents in history combined. The entire nation is essentially bankrupt and living on printed money and debt to places like China.
Ah, so because you can't actually address the point (about the difference between someone stopping the use of dangerous things on their private property in order to avoid the liability surrounding possible injuries to their other customers and frivolous law suits from people who hurt themselves skating in a retail store ... and federal regulations requiring children to sign up for a publicly searchable federal database in order to use their toys), you just try to deflect with some lazy ad hominem. Is it REALLY too challenging to you to directly address the substance of the matter? Yes? I thought so. Because you really don't have a coherent point to make.
Meanwhile, people have no problem recognizing that yes, drones can cause harm, and want something done.
And what sort of harm are people referring to? Please be specific, and compare it to real-life activities that actually DO cause harm, since the rate of injury from the millions of drones in use is essentially zero. Explain how criminalizing the use of a 10-ounce plastic toy will make the public safer from the zero public injuries that result from their millions of uses ... compared to, say, the people who are actually killed every year in hundreds of different recreational activities. Be specific, instead of citing strange off-topic references to three strikes laws (what's your point there, exactly - there is no "three strikes" issue here ... the FAA can fine and jail you on your first use of a 10-ounce toy).
People don't want you to tell them nothing can be done.
Done about what? What actual ongoing issue are they trying to reverse? Kids learning things and having too much fun? That IS pretty awful. Or are you trying to find a way to make exposing children's names and addresses on a publicly-searchable federal database somehow reduce the current level of tragic injuries from zero to ... less than zero?
You can go on wringing your hands and refusing to solve it, but it won't work.
I've already solved it: people aren't being injured and dying from the use of these toys. Are you still not clear on this? Why aren't you out demanding that something be done about soccer balls? Use of those ACTUALLY hurts and even kills people every year. You must be REALLY upset about that, if the use of plastic toys not hurting anybody has you this wound up.
You're just blathering on about something that is a concern for people.
No, I'm illustrating that it's people like you who are irrationally creating a concern over nothing. There are also people who are concerned about the threat of ongoing alien abductions. I suppose you're also working tirelessly to "do something" about that, right? Because it's exactly as much of an issue, and you can find someone uninformed and illogical to get worked up about that, too.
It won't ever be, because people see things differently.
Yes, people see things differently about vaccinations for polio, too. I suppose you're interested in soothing their nerves by cutting them some slack instead of simply pointing out that they're completely misunderstanding the situation? No? I see.
They don't want people able to harm them with drones, and yes, it does keep happening.
If this "keeps on happening," you should have no trouble listing reports of, say, one week's worth of injuries or other tragedies that represent a statistically meaningful cross section of the millions of hours of airtime in use. Focus, for the sake of clarity, on the 10-ounce toys that you feel should be criminalized. I'm sure you can come up with some high profile news articles showing the disasters that keep on happening as a result of their use. I'll fix some popcorn.
it is nonetheless a recognizable problem that needs solutions.
WHAT is a recognizable problem? Kids with 10-ounce plastic copters that have range of about 50 feet and can't fly in any kind of breeze? Please detail what sort of problem, requiring the federal government to fine a 14 year old kid $20,000 and subject them to jail time, you find those hundreds of thousands of toys are presenting. Tell you what: while you're digging for news showing some examples of the tragedies caused by those toys and how federal listing of those kids in a public-facing database would have prevented those problems ... I'll let you round up to 16 ounces, so you have more tragedies to pick from. Since people have been flying such things for decades, you should easily be able to come up with hundreds of examples.
Because I can imagine you whining like a little kid when the Big Box home improvement store throws you for riding around on your skate shoes.
Why would I whine about what someone else does or doesn't allow on their private property?
You've gotta start somewhere
Start what?
So no, they cannot legislate for model aircraft. It isn't that they did not bother to legislate for model aircraft. IT'S THAT THE LAW DOES NOT LET THEM.
As a point of clarity, here, the FAA doesn't legislate anything. They regulate, with statutory authority FROM the legislature. Regardless the law that congress passed to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense is exactly why the Obama administration took advantage of what amounts to a loophole - they didn't use the FAA to require this absurd toy registration - they used the Department Of Transportation, which isn't explicitly mentioned in the law that prevents the FAA from requiring kids to be placed on publicly searchable federal databases for having the audacity to use 10-ounce plastic toys.
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely.
Please cite the number of tragic injuries and other horribleness resulting per year from the use of 10-ounce plastic mall copter toys that warrants the criminalization of their unregistered use ... compared to, say, the HOURLY rate of injuries in the country that result from, say, bicycle or skateboard use in public spaces. Really: get specific.
... it's not real. This absurd toy regulation scheme is completely disconnected from any real-world risk (and we now have YEARS of real-world experience to examine), and the only real risk that people have reason to think about (actual malicious operation) isn't ever going to be impacted by rules anyway - because bad guys think such things are hilarious.
There are millions of "drones" in use with hundreds of millions of in-air hours booked. Surely there's a long parade of horrific accidents, injuries and death resulting from all of those millions of devices being operated? I'm carefully tuned into the topic, and no
People behave just fine.
Man, you must never leave the house.
OK, since you get out of the house so much, you've no doubt got lots of anecdotes and hopefully at least a few examples of the countless tragedies that have occurred because 14 year old kids with 10-ounce plastic copters from the mall kiosk weren't properly put in criminal jeopardy for failing to appear on a publicly searchable federal database of toy owners. There must be many, many injuries and deaths associated with this activity to warrant such a thing, right? Right?
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
There are now many millions of these toys in use, with hundreds of millions of hours in the air. Please cite your long list of examples of these toys being used in such a dangerous way that the long list of injuries and mayhem require a publicly-browsable federal registry of their owners and the criminalization and fining of kids who fail to register their 10 ounce plastic copter with the federal government.
More people are hurt using soccer balls, garden tools, and bicycles in a given day than have been hurt by anyone, ever, using a little plastic toy copter. Why is your first instinct to involve government control, lists, fees, and public databases of toy owners?
You genuinely believe that donations to the Clinton Foundation is what keeps them in power and unpunished? rofl
Why would I believe something that you made up in your own head to fight as a strawman? Oh, I get it. Because you're hoping that by distracting with that juvenile rhetorical technique, that people will forget that the Clintons DO in fact rake in millions of dollars for their own family and cronies (only a sliver of their foundation's revenue goes to anything other than internal paychecks and perks/expenses) in exchange for providing political access to those who pile on the cash. Of course you know this, and are trying to wish it away. Especially the part where she was encouraging that while she was in office, giving lots of access to those who paid her husband. But do carry on, and pretend it didn't happen. Feel better now?
You're undoing your own argument. Culturally, nobody gives a damn if you dance at the Jefferson Memorial, though some people might give a damn if a bunch of people wasted time writing and fussing about legislation to change that law that nobody cares about. On your other topics, you've made your own counterpoint. Culturally, the west has moved very quickly on areas like gay marriage. In practical terms, it's a done deal. There will be lots of little rough edges to clean up for a few years yet. Meanwhile, the Wahabbists and their ilk in the Middle East are going full-throttle backwards into the medieval days they miss so badly.
Saudi Arabia will never have to change as long as they have oil.
Well, that and what given a bunch of cash to the Clinton family will get you, of course.
Look, all that really matters is that Hillary Clinton has the Saudis' backs, as long as they give her family a bunch more cash.
That's because the people who run around screaming about "social justice" do that primarily to distract from the fact that justice is the LAST thing they actually want. How about providing some examples of people who stamp their feet, shout down speakers at colleges, and otherwise rant away ... being actually constructive people interested in open conversation rather than repression of anyone deemed insufficiently onboard with their agenda? Some specific examples to counter the well-earned broad brush of derision would be helpful. But what are you going to trot out ... BLM? Occupy Everything? The Eat The Rich With Bernie Sanders movement? People who insist we switch all pronouns to "it?"
Meanwhile on Slashdot the only people actually acting like SJWs are the people who use the term SJW...
No. Calling out liberal totalitarians is not the same as seeking to actually DO the things (like squelching speech through the power of government) that liberal totalitarians actually do. Though you are performing the approved-by-liberal-elites correct response to being called out - immediately lie about it in hopes that will deflect reality.
He financed their construction.
Well, that's not entirely clear. If the Saudis bought them, then the Saudis financed them. If the Saudis bought them for less than what they cost, then either the manufacturer(s) subsidized some of the cost, or the taxpayers did. Which brings us to the fact that such expenses come out of the discretionary budget, which means it's essentially paid for almost entirely by income taxes or by debt that will be serviced by income taxes ... and that means that only about half of the people in the country actually have a hand in financing such things because the other half pays no income taxes. And of the half that does pay them, of course a small portion of that group pays the majority of those taxes.
So, "we" is indeed not an obvious thing, here.