No, the anti-capitalist claim is that the rich who inherit all their wealth should get tax cuts while the entrepreneuric middle class should carry the cost.
Let's go back to the beginning, because you keep twisting this. You made a sweeping generalization that the rich get their money from a) inheriting it and b) exploiting the workers. I then asserted that this is completely inaccurate, and that the wealthy at one point worked hard to get where they are. I started my career as a warehouse loader and made my way up by working hard. I also started my own website design company, and with hard work it is now beginning to flourish. By most people's standards, I am now "rich" at age 49. Please do not make assertions that you are unable to back up with facts.
Also, I never said the rich shouldn't be taxed more. I merely disagreed with your statement that the rich either inherit all their money or exploit the other 9 workers.
Your original post did not refer to politics, but was a broad Marxist generalization that the rich exploit the poor. Changing the subject to Clinton vs Bush does nothing to support your horrible, anti-capitalist claims.
This is plain stupid. We all believe in property rights etc. But if this analogy should have any reality, the 1 wealthy is wealthy because of the work done by the 9 others.
Or he's wealthy because he worked hard, was intelligent and had the entrepreneurial ability to start his own company? I think the assumption that rich people exploit the workers and don't work hard themselves is very false. But hey, if you want to blame someone else just because you're not as successful as them go ahead.
The profile did not use McGonigle's name, but identified the person pictured as a "principal," and described him as a 40-year-old married, bisexual man whose interests included "being a tight ass," "fucking in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents"
Whoever is modding these comments up (it's libel, too bad for the girl!) needs to stop.
Where did I say that her libel excuses the principle's actions? All I mentioned was that the principle had that option of recourse. I never said, or implied, the "too bad for the girl!" argument, nor do I hold that mentality.
Ahh, forgot about that. That would be pretty easy to prove too though; it wouldn't take much to convince a judge/jury that the principle's credibility and image were damaged.
To prove libel/slander, you have to prove three basic things:
1. The accusations are false 2. She knew the accusations were false 3. She had malicious intent
All three seem pretty easy to prove in this case. The girl's lucky the principle isn't suing her. Free speech is great, but kids like this ruin it by spouting off malicious garbage.
This story is full of BS: I saw the movie at midnight Thursday night, then downloaded a pirated screener copy Friday afternoon so I could rewatch all the awesome Joker scenes. But they're saying they delayed it by 38 hours? Please.
And yeah, make a good product and people will go see it regardless.
The Men's Crew (rowing) team at my school (Old Dominion) had this problem. The Women's team is fully funded, whereas the Men's team was given the option to either disband completely or pay for itself. Consequently the male members all pay extremely high dues. Crew boats are expensive as hell.
"The FBI's geeks admitted they were nervous over computer-generated images at a recent forensics conference. In court they're now arguing that a jury 'can tell' if an image is real or computer-generated -- which marks the current boundary between legal and illegal. But reporter Debbie Nathan argues that that distinction is getting fuzzy, and that geeks will inevitably make it obsolete."
Note: some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.
Nowhere does it mention pornography of any kind. There are plenty of topics that could be deemed "disturbing" to the general public that could involve computer-generated pictures.
My point is that I'm at work and don't want to, you know, get fired. Pornography does not disturb me, but looking at it at work--unintentionally or otherwise--is prohibited. As I already stated above, calling the images "disturbing" was a little too ambiguous, and that was my point.
In other news, a man posted a sign in his front yard that said "Walking on the sidewalk in front of my house may be disturbing." He then flashed his penis at people that DID walk by. They had a warning! It was up to them to decide what the risk was to them, and whether or not to walk by!
A picture of a man with a gunshot wound is "disturbing". That link was pornography.
It'd be nice to see a "NSFW" (Not Suitable For Work) tag on the article. I clicked the link and I'm at work, and am now worried that large men with guns will appear. Saying "The following images may be disturbing" is too ambiguous.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's go back to the beginning, because you keep twisting this. You made a sweeping generalization that the rich get their money from a) inheriting it and b) exploiting the workers. I then asserted that this is completely inaccurate, and that the wealthy at one point worked hard to get where they are. I started my career as a warehouse loader and made my way up by working hard. I also started my own website design company, and with hard work it is now beginning to flourish. By most people's standards, I am now "rich" at age 49. Please do not make assertions that you are unable to back up with facts.
Also, I never said the rich shouldn't be taxed more. I merely disagreed with your statement that the rich either inherit all their money or exploit the other 9 workers.
Your original post did not refer to politics, but was a broad Marxist generalization that the rich exploit the poor. Changing the subject to Clinton vs Bush does nothing to support your horrible, anti-capitalist claims.
Or he's wealthy because he worked hard, was intelligent and had the entrepreneurial ability to start his own company? I think the assumption that rich people exploit the workers and don't work hard themselves is very false. But hey, if you want to blame someone else just because you're not as successful as them go ahead.
This is JUST BEGGING for a new Southpark episode......
There, fixed it for you. This isn't 1998 dude.
You can write him into the ballot, even if he does not appear on it.
Don't forget the 70's. Led Zeppelin FTW!
FWIW, here's what the article says:
The profile did not use McGonigle's name, but identified the person pictured as a "principal," and described him as a 40-year-old married, bisexual man whose interests included "being a tight ass," "fucking in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents"
Calling this case a "parody" is a joke, and most judges (or juries of 12) would agree.
the courts are basically like shamanistic magic that is based on tradition, based on formula, and made up as you go along.
Let's break down the above statement into three distinct thoughts:
based on tradition
based on formula
made up as you go along
The first two are synonyms, but the last one is the complete opposite. Fail.
Whoever is modding these comments up (it's libel, too bad for the girl!) needs to stop.
Where did I say that her libel excuses the principle's actions? All I mentioned was that the principle had that option of recourse. I never said, or implied, the "too bad for the girl!" argument, nor do I hold that mentality.
Ahh, forgot about that. That would be pretty easy to prove too though; it wouldn't take much to convince a judge/jury that the principle's credibility and image were damaged.
There is no issue here, she committed no crime.
It's called libel/slander. She's lucky the principle isn't suing her. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to do anything you want.
To prove libel/slander, you have to prove three basic things:
1. The accusations are false
2. She knew the accusations were false
3. She had malicious intent
All three seem pretty easy to prove in this case. The girl's lucky the principle isn't suing her. Free speech is great, but kids like this ruin it by spouting off malicious garbage.
A company creates a new product and wants users to upgrade, so there will be a pop-up asking them to upgrade? How the hell is this news-worthy?
Ouch, breaking out the "mother's basement" argument? I think that means you lose the debate by default.
Truer words were never spoken.
This story is full of BS: I saw the movie at midnight Thursday night, then downloaded a pirated screener copy Friday afternoon so I could rewatch all the awesome Joker scenes. But they're saying they delayed it by 38 hours? Please. And yeah, make a good product and people will go see it regardless.
The Men's Crew (rowing) team at my school (Old Dominion) had this problem. The Women's team is fully funded, whereas the Men's team was given the option to either disband completely or pay for itself. Consequently the male members all pay extremely high dues. Crew boats are expensive as hell.
Paging Michael Crichton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_(novel)
Actually here's what the slashdot part says:
"The FBI's geeks admitted they were nervous over computer-generated images at a recent forensics conference. In court they're now arguing that a jury 'can tell' if an image is real or computer-generated -- which marks the current boundary between legal and illegal. But reporter Debbie Nathan argues that that distinction is getting fuzzy, and that geeks will inevitably make it obsolete."
Note: some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.
Nowhere does it mention pornography of any kind. There are plenty of topics that could be deemed "disturbing" to the general public that could involve computer-generated pictures.
My point is that I'm at work and don't want to, you know, get fired. Pornography does not disturb me, but looking at it at work--unintentionally or otherwise--is prohibited. As I already stated above, calling the images "disturbing" was a little too ambiguous, and that was my point.
In other news, a man posted a sign in his front yard that said "Walking on the sidewalk in front of my house may be disturbing." He then flashed his penis at people that DID walk by. They had a warning! It was up to them to decide what the risk was to them, and whether or not to walk by!
A picture of a man with a gunshot wound is "disturbing". That link was pornography.
Shit, you found me! *Get's back to work*
It'd be nice to see a "NSFW" (Not Suitable For Work) tag on the article. I clicked the link and I'm at work, and am now worried that large men with guns will appear. Saying "The following images may be disturbing" is too ambiguous.