I'd be willing to bet you're one of the ones that wanted to shift healthcare from those that currently don't have it from those that have it leaving those that currently have it not having it due to it's unaffordability.
All of these media "giants" became giants because they offered alternatives. Yet, they all think that their business model will be eternal. The studios fought against cassette tape recorders, VCRs, video rentals, streaming TV, MP3s, torrents, iTunes, time shifting. In other words, anything that made it more convenient for viewers to -- you know -- view their content was seen as something horrible. If they had their way, we would adjust our schedules around the 6PM Tuesday timeslot to watch some sitcom. Why do they fight technology so fiercely when they should be embracing it? Find out what people like to do and offer a solution... Or, develop a new way and people will flock to it.
It's not fighting the technology that is the issue, it's about fighting the distribution method that is their business plan. If they could quickly monetize the new distribution methods, they would embrace the change. The problem is that large corporations are not agile enough to adapt quickly enough to the ever changing technological shifts that take place today. They invest billions (along with tax payer funding at times) in an infrastructure that is meant to provide a stream of income to profit from, only to be obsoleted in a shorter time frame then was projected. These large companies can not just change on a dime and expect to stay profitable.
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.
Really? Have you *seen* the proliferation of charges the airlines invented, to boost the bottom line? They must employ the equivalent of Einsteins and Shakespeares of customer ripoff to come up with those.
Yes (or do you mean the govt mandated 9/11 fees?). And it's up to you as the consumer to pick which airline you wish to fly. And who are you to tell a business how much they can or can't charge? The market will determine cost. Stop being a lazy consumer.
It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
How dare you let businesses determine their own methods of business. You NEED the government to tell you how to run your business since you suck at running it and some lifetime politician knows more about your business then you do.
Pulling the life support or not assisting to keep someone alive (living will) is different then assisted suicide.
Yes, it probably was an over simplification of a very complicated matter. When does life begin and where does it end. Defining suffering would be an issue here. If someone is suffering from depression and want to commit suicide, is that justification to aid that person with it? Or are they in constant physical pain? The there would have to be some kind of measurement to decide if an assisted suicide is warranted. Then who would make that decision on said suffering?
Since someone(s) justified abortion to pass the highest court, why not assisted suicide? They are akin to taking a life IMO. It's just the circumstances that differ.
Folks don't seem to mind killing them while they are in the womb, so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?
The slippery slop here is who is responsible, because it will be challenged. You are of sound mind and body, but then a grandchild will take the doctor/hospital to court, because there is no way grandma would kill herself. Talk about having a super-iron-clad-irrefutable contract requirement.
You forget that the tradition of invasion, conquest; and economic,religious, and cultural assimilation was a grand old tradition in Eurasia long before the Americsa were discovered. E.g. Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Vandals to name but a few. Americans learned at Europeans feet.
Stop confusing people with historical facts. It's easier to forget the past and blame the present. Really, it's best to blame the present not learning from the past failures.
Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.
It makes me a little sad that I will be able to tell my grandchildren how much fun it was to be a teenager at one time.
How do you teach personal responsibility when you are always being watched and judged?
From 1944 to 1963, people making $200,000 or more ($2.5 million in today's money) paid 90%+ in taxes. Then, from 1964 to 1981, the top rate was 70%. Now? 39.6%. If we made a new top rate of 50% for people earning $1 million or more, how much more money would we bring in?
So you want to revert to the tax code from 1944-1960's era is what you are saying? I'd be fine with that, but we'll have to make sure we get rid of subsidy programs as well.
However, I don't understand something with those tax codes of yesteryear or the request you are making now of a %50 rate for folks making 1million or more. I'm guessing you want it stepped so folks making 900k would pay just shy of 50% correct? If you earn $1,000,000 and give 50% of that income to the federal government, what is left for the State Government, or City Government, or county government? So out of that 1 million, there may be 200k left on the table that you can take home correct? So who are you working and earning money for? Your family or those who didn't work as hard as you to earn that money? And hell, if you got lucky and earn that much, why penalize that person's station?
It's also foolish to think that the folks in power that already have wealth are going to give it away to the Government. This would be just another means to keep people from earning wealth. You won't pay taxes on dollars you already have, only on what you earn. So these types of old tax policies keep the wealthy, wealthy.
speaking in public is rude, but I guess the guy is pretty rude to begin with. and not only that but stupid too.
oh and guilty of talking shit about the system to reporters too, so why isn't he being held for treason?
I don't think he works for the system anymore. And why not talk in the clear about his opinions. He's afforded his opinion is he not? Right or wrong, that is/was the beauty of the free speech thing we tried for a while...You could have an opinion.
Gotta call BS on this. The media were called "message force multipliers" under the Bush administration specifically because they were so amenable to whatever Bush wanted the rest of us to hear. It was independent outlets, like McClatchey, or foreign news services, that reported what might be called "truth."
It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."
I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.
How about defund both and give me my money back. I don't want to pay to listen to phone calls and could care less about paying for someones birth control.
Obamacare was THE major issue of the 2012 election and he won. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. If the situation were reversed and democrats were demanding the abolishion of the second amendment, threatening a government shutdown if it wasn't done, would you be insisting that republicans "compromise"?
You obviously don't understand how the system is supposed to work. Yes, Obama won in 2012. As did those elected to the House of Representatives in 2012. And don't forget that laws are supposed to originate in the House, not from the Presidents desk. Should a law get passed that the voters disagree with, they replace as many Representatives as possible in the two year cycle of elections. That is why it's only two years. To correct those items that the voters didn't want to happen. And that is what is going on here. If you want the President to call all the shots, then put forth an effort to eliminate the House/Senate and Grand Jury. Those are the three branches with equal power (supposedly at one time they did). As for the Senate elections, for some reason, the Senate's appointed duty changed a while back. They used to be appointed by each state's legislature to represent the state's elected body. But now, they are not responsible to the state's elected body, but a representative like those in the House except with 6 year terms.
All I know is this, if you follow either party it doesn't really matter. Both are going to screw the populace.
And since he spent his formative years in England and Denmark that could have well formed his socialist view of the 5th amendment.
When we get a TSA (and a Gitmo) you can preach and gloat.
For now just shut the fuck up, you fat sanctimonious teabagger.
Wow. What a nice person you are. Did I even mention those things? Perhaps you should ask my opinion on those things as well before projecting what my opinion is of them. The US has been creeping away from the true source of the U.S. Constitution for many decades now.
What's really scary about this rebuttal is the proposition that people should not have 5th amendment protections. Just how much more obvious does it have to be that we are falling into a police state/authoritarian mindset at an amazingly fast pace -- the very idea that this is up for debate is shocking. And worse, the author does so without even a remote sense of shame or embarrassment.
There are many folks out there who don't understand, nor have no concern with, individual rights. And since he spent his formative years in England and Denmark that could have well formed his socialist view of the 5th amendment. The Bill of Rights are for INDIVIDUALS. He probably missed that understanding.
Bennett talks quite a bit about society's interest
That's a clue right there. When a person trots out the "interest of society" line, it almost certainly means they are trying to justify something which is bad for the individual (i.e. an attack on individual rights). After all, if it wasn't something bad for the individual, they wouldn't need to justify it in the name of "society".
Agreed. It boils down to individual liberty. There are some who believe that you have none since you are part of a society and that is where your liberty is rooted. When the US system of government long ago (well, not so long ago...), it was the inverse where the liberty was rooted in the individual not the society.
Well considering how irresponsible _all_ the news outlets are, early reports are not to be taken too seriously. But I'm sure folks have already made up their minds about what happened already and had the trial.
This article is pointless--the Federal fiscal year ended on September 30th. Of COURSE the Pentagon's going to spend money like crazy--just about every purchasing department in the Federal Government waits until the very last day to fill out their orders. Doing so allows them to negotiate for better deals to benefit us taxpayers, or allows them to be told how much they've got to spend. This is not a surprise, folks. It's just timing, that's all.
Agreed. This is always done. But this article and subsequent posting by pointing out the Pentagon may, just may, be there to give the appearance of impropriety of one party versus another. Just sayin.
Slashdot Mirror
Another business that can't survive without tax payer money to help keep the costs down on a vehicle that only wealthy folks can afford. Brilliant.
I'd be willing to bet you're one of the ones that wanted to shift healthcare from those that currently don't have it from those that have it leaving those that currently have it not having it due to it's unaffordability.
Ouch, my brain!!
All of these media "giants" became giants because they offered alternatives. Yet, they all think that their business model will be eternal. The studios fought against cassette tape recorders, VCRs, video rentals, streaming TV, MP3s, torrents, iTunes, time shifting. In other words, anything that made it more convenient for viewers to -- you know -- view their content was seen as something horrible. If they had their way, we would adjust our schedules around the 6PM Tuesday timeslot to watch some sitcom. Why do they fight technology so fiercely when they should be embracing it? Find out what people like to do and offer a solution... Or, develop a new way and people will flock to it.
It's not fighting the technology that is the issue, it's about fighting the distribution method that is their business plan. If they could quickly monetize the new distribution methods, they would embrace the change. The problem is that large corporations are not agile enough to adapt quickly enough to the ever changing technological shifts that take place today. They invest billions (along with tax payer funding at times) in an infrastructure that is meant to provide a stream of income to profit from, only to be obsoleted in a shorter time frame then was projected. These large companies can not just change on a dime and expect to stay profitable.
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.
Really? Have you *seen* the proliferation of charges the airlines invented, to boost the bottom line? They must employ the equivalent of Einsteins and Shakespeares of customer ripoff to come up with those.
Yes (or do you mean the govt mandated 9/11 fees?). And it's up to you as the consumer to pick which airline you wish to fly. And who are you to tell a business how much they can or can't charge? The market will determine cost. Stop being a lazy consumer.
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.
It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
How dare you let businesses determine their own methods of business. You NEED the government to tell you how to run your business since you suck at running it and some lifetime politician knows more about your business then you do.
I bet if the "suspect" was named "John Smith" and white he might not have been arrested.
I'm surprised that didn't make it into the summary.
To add more quotes for you, it's called "Race Baiting."
... even a tricycle can become deadly.
Stop blaming the car.
The problem is the driver.
That Porsche may have 600 hp, but in the hand of an excellent driver, it would be still a very safe car.
Exactly. It's like blaming the gun.....just sayin.
Pulling the life support or not assisting to keep someone alive (living will) is different then assisted suicide.
Yes, it probably was an over simplification of a very complicated matter. When does life begin and where does it end. Defining suffering would be an issue here. If someone is suffering from depression and want to commit suicide, is that justification to aid that person with it? Or are they in constant physical pain? The there would have to be some kind of measurement to decide if an assisted suicide is warranted. Then who would make that decision on said suffering?
Since someone(s) justified abortion to pass the highest court, why not assisted suicide? They are akin to taking a life IMO. It's just the circumstances that differ.
Folks don't seem to mind killing them while they are in the womb, so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?
The slippery slop here is who is responsible, because it will be challenged. You are of sound mind and body, but then a grandchild will take the doctor/hospital to court, because there is no way grandma would kill herself. Talk about having a super-iron-clad-irrefutable contract requirement.
You forget that the tradition of invasion, conquest; and economic,religious, and cultural assimilation was a grand old tradition in Eurasia long before the Americsa were discovered. E.g. Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Vandals to name but a few. Americans learned at Europeans feet.
Stop confusing people with historical facts. It's easier to forget the past and blame the present. Really, it's best to blame the present not learning from the past failures.
Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.
It makes me a little sad that I will be able to tell my grandchildren how much fun it was to be a teenager at one time.
How do you teach personal responsibility when you are always being watched and judged?
Who's getting the rights to Uranus?
Just to add some information to your post, here's a Wikipedia article showing the top rates from 1913 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
From 1944 to 1963, people making $200,000 or more ($2.5 million in today's money) paid 90%+ in taxes. Then, from 1964 to 1981, the top rate was 70%. Now? 39.6%. If we made a new top rate of 50% for people earning $1 million or more, how much more money would we bring in?
So you want to revert to the tax code from 1944-1960's era is what you are saying? I'd be fine with that, but we'll have to make sure we get rid of subsidy programs as well.
However, I don't understand something with those tax codes of yesteryear or the request you are making now of a %50 rate for folks making 1million or more. I'm guessing you want it stepped so folks making 900k would pay just shy of 50% correct? If you earn $1,000,000 and give 50% of that income to the federal government, what is left for the State Government, or City Government, or county government? So out of that 1 million, there may be 200k left on the table that you can take home correct? So who are you working and earning money for? Your family or those who didn't work as hard as you to earn that money? And hell, if you got lucky and earn that much, why penalize that person's station?
It's also foolish to think that the folks in power that already have wealth are going to give it away to the Government. This would be just another means to keep people from earning wealth. You won't pay taxes on dollars you already have, only on what you earn. So these types of old tax policies keep the wealthy, wealthy.
he could have gone to the toilet.
speaking in public is rude, but I guess the guy is pretty rude to begin with. and not only that but stupid too.
oh and guilty of talking shit about the system to reporters too, so why isn't he being held for treason?
I don't think he works for the system anymore. And why not talk in the clear about his opinions. He's afforded his opinion is he not? Right or wrong, that is/was the beauty of the free speech thing we tried for a while...You could have an opinion.
Gotta call BS on this. The media were called "message force multipliers" under the Bush administration specifically because they were so amenable to whatever Bush wanted the rest of us to hear. It was independent outlets, like McClatchey, or foreign news services, that reported what might be called "truth."
It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."
I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.
How many CEOs don't even have a degree?
You could apply the apprentice/journeymen/expert to the IT guild as much with most any other learned trade.
How about defund both and give me my money back. I don't want to pay to listen to phone calls and could care less about paying for someones birth control.
Obamacare was THE major issue of the 2012 election and he won. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. If the situation were reversed and democrats were demanding the abolishion of the second amendment, threatening a government shutdown if it wasn't done, would you be insisting that republicans "compromise"?
You obviously don't understand how the system is supposed to work. Yes, Obama won in 2012. As did those elected to the House of Representatives in 2012. And don't forget that laws are supposed to originate in the House, not from the Presidents desk. Should a law get passed that the voters disagree with, they replace as many Representatives as possible in the two year cycle of elections. That is why it's only two years. To correct those items that the voters didn't want to happen. And that is what is going on here. If you want the President to call all the shots, then put forth an effort to eliminate the House/Senate and Grand Jury. Those are the three branches with equal power (supposedly at one time they did). As for the Senate elections, for some reason, the Senate's appointed duty changed a while back. They used to be appointed by each state's legislature to represent the state's elected body. But now, they are not responsible to the state's elected body, but a representative like those in the House except with 6 year terms.
All I know is this, if you follow either party it doesn't really matter. Both are going to screw the populace.
Seriously? You're going to reference The Examiner for the park ranger quote? Come on.
Pick your side of the news (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, BBC, Al-Jazeera) and repeat the quote.
I don't think there is an unbiased news source out there left in the world. A touch of fact with a huge helping of opinion equals news now days.
When we get a TSA (and a Gitmo) you can preach and gloat.
For now just shut the fuck up, you fat sanctimonious teabagger.
Wow. What a nice person you are. Did I even mention those things? Perhaps you should ask my opinion on those things as well before projecting what my opinion is of them. The US has been creeping away from the true source of the U.S. Constitution for many decades now.
What's really scary about this rebuttal is the proposition that people should not have 5th amendment protections. Just how much more obvious does it have to be that we are falling into a police state/authoritarian mindset at an amazingly fast pace -- the very idea that this is up for debate is shocking. And worse, the author does so without even a remote sense of shame or embarrassment.
There are many folks out there who don't understand, nor have no concern with, individual rights. And since he spent his formative years in England and Denmark that could have well formed his socialist view of the 5th amendment. The Bill of Rights are for INDIVIDUALS. He probably missed that understanding.
Bennett talks quite a bit about society's interest
That's a clue right there. When a person trots out the "interest of society" line, it almost certainly means they are trying to justify something which is bad for the individual (i.e. an attack on individual rights). After all, if it wasn't something bad for the individual, they wouldn't need to justify it in the name of "society".
Agreed. It boils down to individual liberty. There are some who believe that you have none since you are part of a society and that is where your liberty is rooted. When the US system of government long ago (well, not so long ago...), it was the inverse where the liberty was rooted in the individual not the society.
Well considering how irresponsible _all_ the news outlets are, early reports are not to be taken too seriously. But I'm sure folks have already made up their minds about what happened already and had the trial.
This article is pointless--the Federal fiscal year ended on September 30th. Of COURSE the Pentagon's going to spend money like crazy--just about every purchasing department in the Federal Government waits until the very last day to fill out their orders. Doing so allows them to negotiate for better deals to benefit us taxpayers, or allows them to be told how much they've got to spend. This is not a surprise, folks. It's just timing, that's all.
Agreed. This is always done. But this article and subsequent posting by pointing out the Pentagon may, just may, be there to give the appearance of impropriety of one party versus another. Just sayin.