If being a smug asshole is a good enough reason to shut down someone's YT channel, why does Google still allow... well, any couple hundred Hollywood types to hold court there? Because Google likes to cherry pick their outrage and spank those who aren't in line with their personal sensibilities.
But you have elected representatives that can face that CA legislator in the house or senate and speak (and vote) on your behalf. You do NOT have anyone representing you some other state house as that state sets up it's own rules for sales taxation that suddenly YOU are obliged to collect for them in your own state.
So, Google runs the Android eco-system AND YouTube, but can't stop millions of views of scammy stuff like this that's fake by definition... but they'll kill off the entire channel of some guy who shows you how to repair the trigger on your dad's old deer rifle because that's obviously evil.
Which should have exactly ZERO bearing on the constitutional issues involved. The government doesn't get infringe on your right to speak, or assemble, or defend yourself - and not only when you only do it a little, or a lot. Those principles are one size fits all. Phoning, faxing, driving, mailing, or app-submitting an order to a retailer should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether that business is obligated to act as an agent of an out of state government where the business's owners don't even have a vote.
I always love it when you have poor information and no proper context, but still feel like you have to lie and have a little ad hominem tantrum to feel better about yourself while you stalk the people you're obsessed with. It's pretty entertaining.
The constitution is silent on inter-state sales taxes. This requires a LEGISLATIVE fix to spare people with NO VOTE on how an out of state government forces them to conduct business from taxation without representation in all of those other states and taxing jurisdictions.
The process described could just as easily have happened 50 years ago in a large enough operation driven by set procedures and compartmentalized people who have specific, required action in response to specific input handed to them. Just another case of With-A-Computer-Ism.
Often people want to stop using Facebook regularly but keep an account there so that they can deal with events that people put on there or view the odd family photo etc.
I agree. My point is that no signing into it for ten days (rather than actively deleting the account) isn't "trying to break up with Facebook." The headline, the summary, and even the whole point of the thing is kinda disingenuous that way.
Choosing not to sign in to a platform you've been steadily using, where you are a member of active groups and have friends (that you follow) who post content... and then getting updates from that platform telling you the sorts of things that are going on with your contacts/interests - that's NOT "trying to break up." Closing your account is "breaking up." Do that, and you'll stop hearing from FB in short order. Playing coy by keeping your account active and your connections established while not visiting for a week and half - sounds like he experienced exactly what one would expect.
Having a government ISP All people pay via taxes for internet, which is overall cheaper because everyone is paying, and more people would use it because they would have affordable access.
Hilarious. Nearly half the country doesn't even pay any income tax. Large percentages have their utilities (like power and water) subsidized or entirely paid for by other people. Your notion of "everybody paying" isn't even on the same planet as the reality of the situation.
And that rural grocery store? A slow, laggy satellite internet service is just find for the very low bandwidth needed to run a few transactions at the register. That's already available, and will be even cheaper as some newer low-orbit swarm solutions start to kick in. Nobody is going to drag fiber down every farm road and up every mountain gravel road for universal service. It would cost a hundred thousand dollars to serve some single farm houses.
Yeah, he's a narcissistic dick. And he decided to do a number of criminally stupid things. Locking him away is a reasonable consequence for being a criminally dangerous dick.
And everything that you're complaining about happened entirely in keeping with the constitution's process of choosing an executive, and we dodged the bullet of having instead a sociopathic liar made rich by selling access while she and her husband previously had the job and with people in the DoJ and FBI dead set on letting her get away with a series of crimes in order to regain political power.
So, what you're saying is that you hope that pretending you're unaware that this change has been talked about since before Trump was in office, and he's been talking about it with people from every branch and service provider almost since the day he took office... you're hoping that by playing dumb, you'll somehow score rhetorical points with other dumb people? Not sure what your plan is, exactly.
And, if you think that defense-related operations in space largely don't exist, you're an idiot. Never mind, same as before. You know better, but somehow have that weird liberal defect where you think that playing dumb and then complaining about things you're implying are too complex for you to understand will... somehow get other people to vote the way you tell them to. You're really not thinking this through very well.
Well, sure, in a pathetic-idiots-dressing-up-like-Halloween flavor, yes. In terms of being an actual political party with real influence over people's lives? Not so much. Mind you, it is concerning that people using the Nazi Brown Shirt tactics and world view (Antifa) are happy to put on black outfits and beat people bloody in order to silence them at public gatherings. That sort of wannabe-Nazi-ism, where they proudly use violence to shut down public discourse, is troubling. But only because academics encourage it.
But the real "still very much real" concern is, of course, the Marxist bunch. We still have a lot of people around the world and here in the US happily championing the world view that's killed over a hundred million people and counting. We can see their wreckage still happening all around us, and those same academics that cheer on the Antifa Brown Shirts trying to help them are the ones loudly proclaiming the superiority of the most deadly, destructive movement of the last couple centuries, if not all of history.
We need more federal agencies for the taxpayers to support! Drain the swamp! That is what it means, right?
No, it means that this area of activity is already happening and will be expanding greatly no matter what, and that we have a compelling interest in preventing multiple other branches from wasting your money and lots of time overlapping as they each pursue the gaps that are there. Less waste in DoD spending IS a feature of swamp draining. Which you know. What's your point?
.... Seems like cyberspace is the more pressing thing to defend.
So you must be pleased that's also happening, as has been exhaustively covered. That major Trump-favoring outlet the Washington Post, even, just wrote a long piece about how work done in that area is being aggressively ramped up.
Welcome to the New America, where conservatives care more about putting SJWs in their place than little things like terms limits.
Sure! Because if we weren't plagued by people like the SJWs infecting both local and national politics, term limits would have very little appeal. Why treat the symptom when you can treat the problem itself?
It really is fun watching the Shillaries unable to ever actually talk about the substance of any single thing. And then they wonder why they lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who can't stand people like you any more. Carry on! More! It will help again in the next round. Thanks!
Yup. And you'd be labeled a Nazi for simply observing reality.
As it stands right now, if Google wants to increase diversity in skin pigment for it's own sake, then what they're going to get is diversity in actual skills, instead. Less superb, and more average. And they don't want average, for obvious reasons. So the social diversity score simply follows the talent. Unforgivable, right?
So, indeed, you've got exactly no information. Not a single statute you can cite. Not a scrap of a reason to explain why you think a prison sentence would result. Only a witless question about why every lawyer in the world tells every client in the world that they have no reason whatsoever to sit down voluntarily with a predatory special counsel that has hired a 100% partisan Democrat team of assistants who have shown that - lacking any substance related in any way to their actual mission from the DoJ - they are mostly interested in trying to trip up the person they're talking to. You know, to get them to recall and describe a distant event or conversation in two different ways so they can attempt to ruin them on a process matter unrelated to their actual supposed investigation.
And since we've just seen evidence of yet another Mueller investigator being so overtly biased that even Mueller thought it was too much to be allowed to be seen in public, and added him to the list of people he's had to fire for their Clinton-machine, anti-Trump political agenda... why would, especially in light of the DoJ IG's recent report showing how pervasive that political agenda has been among the people that far up the DoJ food chain, why would anyone who hasn't done anything wrong (you yourself can't even cite anything) bother themselves to sit through that process? Trump won't get the pre-interview-already-guaranteed-no-friction pass that Hillary Clinton got from her partisan supporters at the top of the FBI, so why even screw around with it?
Of course you have special, secret knowledge that nobody in congressional oversight committees with access to millions of documents has. You've got secret inside info that hasn't been leaked out even though everything else has been. And you're SO good at keeping your secret info secret that even now while you're telling everyone that prison is appropriate, you can't share your special secret knowledge to even indicate which actual laws were broken. On the other hand, we can point to specific laws that Hillary Clinton and her staff broke, but of course her staff were all given immunity while talking about it, even though we just saw that the FBI agents interviewing them concluded that her staff had repeatedly lied during interviews. Without consequence. Yeah, sit down in front of people that biased in order to talk about how nothing you've done broke any laws. Your point being?
Cite the violated laws, coward. Otherwise, admit you're just spewing partisan BS that you'd never say about the actually guilty party you're still shilling for.
So, which law is it you're saying Trump violated when Greenburg approached Stone to tell him he had information the campaign might want to hear? Is it the same legal territory you might discuss when the DNC/Clinton machine spent money to hire foreign agents to spend time in Russia obtaining phony info from government agents there? Please catch your breath from your shrieking for a moment, and be specific on the statutes involved. No? Don't have that handy to copy/paste like the anonymous troll you are? Didn't think so.
Regardless, most Democrats think they're overweight because of genetics, while Republicans tend to think it's because of personal behavior. Gee, what a surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
If being a smug asshole is a good enough reason to shut down someone's YT channel, why does Google still allow ... well, any couple hundred Hollywood types to hold court there? Because Google likes to cherry pick their outrage and spank those who aren't in line with their personal sensibilities.
But you have elected representatives that can face that CA legislator in the house or senate and speak (and vote) on your behalf. You do NOT have anyone representing you some other state house as that state sets up it's own rules for sales taxation that suddenly YOU are obliged to collect for them in your own state.
So, Google runs the Android eco-system AND YouTube, but can't stop millions of views of scammy stuff like this that's fake by definition ... but they'll kill off the entire channel of some guy who shows you how to repair the trigger on your dad's old deer rifle because that's obviously evil.
Which should have exactly ZERO bearing on the constitutional issues involved. The government doesn't get infringe on your right to speak, or assemble, or defend yourself - and not only when you only do it a little, or a lot. Those principles are one size fits all. Phoning, faxing, driving, mailing, or app-submitting an order to a retailer should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether that business is obligated to act as an agent of an out of state government where the business's owners don't even have a vote.
Really. Are you THAT unable to parse sarcasm and a satirical remark? Life must be really awkward for you.
I always love it when you have poor information and no proper context, but still feel like you have to lie and have a little ad hominem tantrum to feel better about yourself while you stalk the people you're obsessed with. It's pretty entertaining.
The constitution is silent on inter-state sales taxes. This requires a LEGISLATIVE fix to spare people with NO VOTE on how an out of state government forces them to conduct business from taxation without representation in all of those other states and taxing jurisdictions.
Also known as the Accounting Software Developers And Consultants Permanent Employment Act.
The process described could just as easily have happened 50 years ago in a large enough operation driven by set procedures and compartmentalized people who have specific, required action in response to specific input handed to them. Just another case of With-A-Computer-Ism.
Often people want to stop using Facebook regularly but keep an account there so that they can deal with events that people put on there or view the odd family photo etc.
I agree. My point is that no signing into it for ten days (rather than actively deleting the account) isn't "trying to break up with Facebook." The headline, the summary, and even the whole point of the thing is kinda disingenuous that way.
Choosing not to sign in to a platform you've been steadily using, where you are a member of active groups and have friends (that you follow) who post content ... and then getting updates from that platform telling you the sorts of things that are going on with your contacts/interests - that's NOT "trying to break up." Closing your account is "breaking up." Do that, and you'll stop hearing from FB in short order. Playing coy by keeping your account active and your connections established while not visiting for a week and half - sounds like he experienced exactly what one would expect.
Having a government ISP All people pay via taxes for internet, which is overall cheaper because everyone is paying, and more people would use it because they would have affordable access.
Hilarious. Nearly half the country doesn't even pay any income tax. Large percentages have their utilities (like power and water) subsidized or entirely paid for by other people. Your notion of "everybody paying" isn't even on the same planet as the reality of the situation.
And that rural grocery store? A slow, laggy satellite internet service is just find for the very low bandwidth needed to run a few transactions at the register. That's already available, and will be even cheaper as some newer low-orbit swarm solutions start to kick in. Nobody is going to drag fiber down every farm road and up every mountain gravel road for universal service. It would cost a hundred thousand dollars to serve some single farm houses.
Seriously, there's something wrong here.
Yeah, he's a narcissistic dick. And he decided to do a number of criminally stupid things. Locking him away is a reasonable consequence for being a criminally dangerous dick.
And everything that you're complaining about happened entirely in keeping with the constitution's process of choosing an executive, and we dodged the bullet of having instead a sociopathic liar made rich by selling access while she and her husband previously had the job and with people in the DoJ and FBI dead set on letting her get away with a series of crimes in order to regain political power.
So, what you're saying is that you hope that pretending you're unaware that this change has been talked about since before Trump was in office, and he's been talking about it with people from every branch and service provider almost since the day he took office ... you're hoping that by playing dumb, you'll somehow score rhetorical points with other dumb people? Not sure what your plan is, exactly.
... somehow get other people to vote the way you tell them to. You're really not thinking this through very well.
And, if you think that defense-related operations in space largely don't exist, you're an idiot. Never mind, same as before. You know better, but somehow have that weird liberal defect where you think that playing dumb and then complaining about things you're implying are too complex for you to understand will
Nazis, unfortunately, still are very much real.
Well, sure, in a pathetic-idiots-dressing-up-like-Halloween flavor, yes. In terms of being an actual political party with real influence over people's lives? Not so much. Mind you, it is concerning that people using the Nazi Brown Shirt tactics and world view (Antifa) are happy to put on black outfits and beat people bloody in order to silence them at public gatherings. That sort of wannabe-Nazi-ism, where they proudly use violence to shut down public discourse, is troubling. But only because academics encourage it.
But the real "still very much real" concern is, of course, the Marxist bunch. We still have a lot of people around the world and here in the US happily championing the world view that's killed over a hundred million people and counting. We can see their wreckage still happening all around us, and those same academics that cheer on the Antifa Brown Shirts trying to help them are the ones loudly proclaiming the superiority of the most deadly, destructive movement of the last couple centuries, if not all of history.
We need more federal agencies for the taxpayers to support! Drain the swamp! That is what it means, right?
No, it means that this area of activity is already happening and will be expanding greatly no matter what, and that we have a compelling interest in preventing multiple other branches from wasting your money and lots of time overlapping as they each pursue the gaps that are there. Less waste in DoD spending IS a feature of swamp draining. Which you know. What's your point?
.... Seems like cyberspace is the more pressing thing to defend.
So you must be pleased that's also happening, as has been exhaustively covered. That major Trump-favoring outlet the Washington Post, even, just wrote a long piece about how work done in that area is being aggressively ramped up.
Welcome to the New America, where conservatives care more about putting SJWs in their place than little things like terms limits.
Sure! Because if we weren't plagued by people like the SJWs infecting both local and national politics, term limits would have very little appeal. Why treat the symptom when you can treat the problem itself?
It really is fun watching the Shillaries unable to ever actually talk about the substance of any single thing. And then they wonder why they lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who can't stand people like you any more. Carry on! More! It will help again in the next round. Thanks!
Yup. And you'd be labeled a Nazi for simply observing reality.
As it stands right now, if Google wants to increase diversity in skin pigment for it's own sake, then what they're going to get is diversity in actual skills, instead. Less superb, and more average. And they don't want average, for obvious reasons. So the social diversity score simply follows the talent. Unforgivable, right?
So, indeed, you've got exactly no information. Not a single statute you can cite. Not a scrap of a reason to explain why you think a prison sentence would result. Only a witless question about why every lawyer in the world tells every client in the world that they have no reason whatsoever to sit down voluntarily with a predatory special counsel that has hired a 100% partisan Democrat team of assistants who have shown that - lacking any substance related in any way to their actual mission from the DoJ - they are mostly interested in trying to trip up the person they're talking to. You know, to get them to recall and describe a distant event or conversation in two different ways so they can attempt to ruin them on a process matter unrelated to their actual supposed investigation.
... why would, especially in light of the DoJ IG's recent report showing how pervasive that political agenda has been among the people that far up the DoJ food chain, why would anyone who hasn't done anything wrong (you yourself can't even cite anything) bother themselves to sit through that process? Trump won't get the pre-interview-already-guaranteed-no-friction pass that Hillary Clinton got from her partisan supporters at the top of the FBI, so why even screw around with it?
And since we've just seen evidence of yet another Mueller investigator being so overtly biased that even Mueller thought it was too much to be allowed to be seen in public, and added him to the list of people he's had to fire for their Clinton-machine, anti-Trump political agenda
Of course you have special, secret knowledge that nobody in congressional oversight committees with access to millions of documents has. You've got secret inside info that hasn't been leaked out even though everything else has been. And you're SO good at keeping your secret info secret that even now while you're telling everyone that prison is appropriate, you can't share your special secret knowledge to even indicate which actual laws were broken. On the other hand, we can point to specific laws that Hillary Clinton and her staff broke, but of course her staff were all given immunity while talking about it, even though we just saw that the FBI agents interviewing them concluded that her staff had repeatedly lied during interviews. Without consequence. Yeah, sit down in front of people that biased in order to talk about how nothing you've done broke any laws. Your point being?
Cite the violated laws, coward. Otherwise, admit you're just spewing partisan BS that you'd never say about the actually guilty party you're still shilling for.
So, which law is it you're saying Trump violated when Greenburg approached Stone to tell him he had information the campaign might want to hear? Is it the same legal territory you might discuss when the DNC/Clinton machine spent money to hire foreign agents to spend time in Russia obtaining phony info from government agents there? Please catch your breath from your shrieking for a moment, and be specific on the statutes involved. No? Don't have that handy to copy/paste like the anonymous troll you are? Didn't think so.
You're going to need to watch your own fat waistline with all that copy-pasta you're eating, troll.
Like Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore?
Regardless, most Democrats think they're overweight because of genetics, while Republicans tend to think it's because of personal behavior. Gee, what a surprise.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappbl...