We both know that if that lack of legroom actually prevented you from flying, you'd raise a stink.
No, I wouldn't, and the fact that I suffered in extreme discomfort on such trips without complaining to my local lawmaker should be a hint to you.
No one is asking for special treatment, or extra expense. You know this, but you lack the courage of your convictions to just say that you dislike the disabled.
Wow, can you seriously be that delusional? Do you think closed captioning doesn't cost extra? It's exactly special treatment for a minority being called into force through legislation.
This is exactly what he wanted; he keeps the Supremes out of the political arena and galvanizes people to do what they should've done in the first place; repeal the freaking thing. Don't make the Court do the dirty work.
Umm, what? His job is to rule on the constitutionality of law. Either this law is constitutional or it isn't. Ruling in any other way is playing politics.
Hypocrites like yourself are why these laws are necessary for a free society.
Oh really? Where have I demanded special accommodation? I happen to have long legs, and have had hellish trips on buses and airplanes because of it, but I never demanded that airlines and bus lines be legally required to provide more legroom.
The real hypocrite is you, who talks about a "free society" where you think only people with severed spines are allowed to decide on mandatory, special treatment at extra expense.
If resources become scarce enough (and mark my words, they will within our lifetime), then, yes, society will elect to eliminate the fringe.
You're missing the point. We could do all these things now under your justification that "what is best for society, which always trumps whats good for an individual or group of individuals".
Did someone say something about everybody 'knowing' he had no WMDs..?
"All the information pointing to no WMD"
That's discounting his evasive actions until he was on the brink of being invaded. It also discounts the general feeling that Iraq was not in compliance leading up to the threat of war:
"Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed."
"If you do not want to be called by a telemarketer making an exempt call, you can ask to be put on the telemarketer's internal do not call list. Every Canadian telemarketer is required to maintain such a list and respect your wishes not to be called."
That's assuming they were working within the laws. The courts said they weren't. At least the companies behind a movie like Shrek created a movie (at great expense) that people wanted to see. The Pirate Bay were pure leaches.
It took me a long time to understand that for many people, this simple truth is not self evident.
That's because things you call "simple truth" aren't.
Copyright reduces the standard of living in a very simple way: It prevents everyone from having every piece of art they desire.
On the flip side, it provides an incentive to create, and in particular create more than just hole-in-the-wall theater. You wouldn't have the blockbuster movies, or the expensive games, or the jobs that go along with them without some form of copyright.
whats at issue is what is best for society, which always trumps whats good for an individual or group of individuals.
If that's the case then we can just eradicate people living on the margins, since they are a net drain. Speech considered harmful to society can be forbidden. Medical experiments can be done on prisoners. I'm sure all of this is "self evident truth" to you.
Christ, you're full of shit. I've made it clear over and over again that a business should not have to go through extra expense to accommodate somebody with special needs.
No, you don't, and it is besides the point. That somebody in a wheelchair thinks society should be forced to engineer themselves to accommodate them doesn't mean that the rest of society has to agree or have their spine severed to disagree.
[..] companies who imposed the fine with their immoral lawsuits [..] At least that's what I would do if somebody told me to pay 1.5 million dollars for maintaining a site with links to files that could be used to obtain potentially copyright infringing content.
I love how you guys play the, "I'm not touching you!" defense when they've got their finger almost in the eye of their target. They were called "The Pirate Bay", and their main reason to exist was to allow copyright infringement of commercial materials. When links to such materials were asked to be removed, they publicly told the media lawyers to go fuck themselves. They were also making money on ads, and while they claim it was just to cover costs, there was never any transparency and any site with their traffic should have been a big money maker.
I give these guys credit for being ballsy, but otherwise they were a bunch of leaches.
Later???...why at the time did the USA not listen to the 190 other countries who were pointing and screaming at the lies and falsities from day one (and they were obvious)?
I knew somebody would respond with something like this. The mantra behind other countries was "give inspections more time". Saddam was not cooperative at first, and it looked like he was hiding something. When the pressure ratcheted up, he gave more access. I've had this discussion before on Slashdot, and have done the research. This idea that everybody knew Saddam had no WMD is bullshit.
Watch Frontline's The Warning sometime. The Democrats and Clinton, along with the Republicans, believed Greenspan and his buddies that regulating the derivatives market wasn't required and would harm business.
Stimulus is about de-leveraging debt through works.
It's about creating more debt in the hopes that it will jumpstart a stalled economy.
Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush.
Holy shit, what cave were you living in? In 2000-2001, the dotcom bubble burst, plunging the country into a recession. In 2001, 9/11 happened. The war in Iraq was a muddled and expensive disaster, and we later found out it was on false pretenses. Iraq was probably the predominant reason Bush's approval ratings were so low near the end of his term. Deficit spending was in full bloom (including the giveaway to big pharma for drug spending when Bush was trying to get re-elected in 2004). The deficit spending under Bush, along with lax oversight of the financial industry (both parties are to blame for this), meant when the crash came we were in a big, big hole.
Of course, the Republicans and Romney think we can untax ourselves out of it with tax breaks to the rich. Yeah, that worked for a bit, until it stopped working and left us with an even bigger bill.
It's not that I think Obama has good answers either (yay, more stimulus spending), but trying to pin this on a Democratic Congress is ridiculous.
I stopped watching after the episode where Stewie was seriously hurt, and instead of getting him to a hospital they kept on trying to cover it up until the whole thing turned into a dead baby sick-and-twisted animation. I put up with the Conway Twitty and other overly-long jokes ridiculousness, but that whole episode was repugnant without being funny at all.
It demands that businesses take extra expenses and create special accommodations for a minority. There's nothing "equal" about that. In a free society, I don't need to have my spine severed to decide against that.
"When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of "inert material," harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust."
Emphasis mine. This is not entrapment at all. The attack was his idea. The feds just helped him along to show he was willing to go through with it. It's no different than if somebody asked a bartender about a hitman to kill their spouse, and then the feds supplied them with one.
The Cromitie case is much more dubious, and if it's true he wasn't actively seeking to become a jihadist, I feel it is entrapment. But I also feel that way about cops dropping bills on the subway and arresting people who pick them up and keep them, or cops who leave unlocked vehicles with keys in the ignition in bad neighborhoods.
Because killing somebody is an extreme punishment, and broadening the definition of treason to include non-war acts is a step in the wrong direction. If you want don't want to be killed yourself for political "crimes" against the state, then extend the same respect for life to the politicians themselves.
Furthermore, just what laws are considered unconstitutional are often political matters in flux. Let's just take one example, Roe v. Wade. Do you think the lawmaker responsible for abortion restrictions deserves to die because the court later ruled against it?
It's easy to say these things are "minor" costs when you're not the one paying for them, even if you are indirectly. Many businesses eek out a living on shoestring budgets.
Of course many will fail, but many go on to succeed, and some just hum along making enough profit to stay in business. Every barrier you put in the way makes it that much harder for a business to succeed.
Yeah, I mean really, deaf folks pursuing happiness?
I've got nothing against that.
Hearing folks helping them pursue this goal?
There's a big difference between voluntary help and forced help.
Legal persons being subject to the authority that makes their existence possible?
You're missing the part about freedom and pursuing your own happiness. What you are advocating is forcing society at large to make special accommodations for a minority under the guise of being against "discrimination".
Slashdot Mirror
We both know that if that lack of legroom actually prevented you from flying, you'd raise a stink.
No, I wouldn't, and the fact that I suffered in extreme discomfort on such trips without complaining to my local lawmaker should be a hint to you.
No one is asking for special treatment, or extra expense. You know this, but you lack the courage of your convictions to just say that you dislike the disabled.
Wow, can you seriously be that delusional? Do you think closed captioning doesn't cost extra? It's exactly special treatment for a minority being called into force through legislation.
This is exactly what he wanted; he keeps the Supremes out of the political arena and galvanizes people to do what they should've done in the first place; repeal the freaking thing. Don't make the Court do the dirty work.
Umm, what? His job is to rule on the constitutionality of law. Either this law is constitutional or it isn't. Ruling in any other way is playing politics.
How so, exactly?
Hypocrites like yourself are why these laws are necessary for a free society.
Oh really? Where have I demanded special accommodation? I happen to have long legs, and have had hellish trips on buses and airplanes because of it, but I never demanded that airlines and bus lines be legally required to provide more legroom.
The real hypocrite is you, who talks about a "free society" where you think only people with severed spines are allowed to decide on mandatory, special treatment at extra expense.
If resources become scarce enough (and mark my words, they will within our lifetime), then, yes, society will elect to eliminate the fringe.
You're missing the point. We could do all these things now under your justification that "what is best for society, which always trumps whats good for an individual or group of individuals".
No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean it can't be repugnant and not funny.
Alternatively, that's a load of old bollocks.
Operation Lucky Bag
I recall seeing a much earlier (as in years) version of this story where it was naked money that they dropped, but the wallet is close enough.
Did someone say something about everybody 'knowing' he had no WMDs..?
"All the information pointing to no WMD"
That's discounting his evasive actions until he was on the brink of being invaded. It also discounts the general feeling that Iraq was not in compliance leading up to the threat of war:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/French_address_on_Iraq_at_the_UN_Security_Council :
"Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed."
My provider likes to call me every few months and ask if i'd like their telephone service. I keep having to explain to them [..]
Have you tried telling them that you don't want marketing calls to your number?
National Do Not Call List: Who Can Still Call You?:
"If you do not want to be called by a telemarketer making an exempt call, you can ask to be put on the telemarketer's internal do not call list. Every Canadian telemarketer is required to maintain such a list and respect your wishes not to be called."
Oh God. I just realized why Slashdot needs to give us the ability to edit out posts...
I'm really glad Slashdot doesn't let you edit posts. I prefer the occassional mistakes to people changing what they say in 1984 style.
That's assuming they were working within the laws. The courts said they weren't. At least the companies behind a movie like Shrek created a movie (at great expense) that people wanted to see. The Pirate Bay were pure leaches.
It took me a long time to understand that for many people, this simple truth is not self evident.
That's because things you call "simple truth" aren't.
Copyright reduces the standard of living in a very simple way: It prevents everyone from having every piece of art they desire.
On the flip side, it provides an incentive to create, and in particular create more than just hole-in-the-wall theater. You wouldn't have the blockbuster movies, or the expensive games, or the jobs that go along with them without some form of copyright.
whats at issue is what is best for society, which always trumps whats good for an individual or group of individuals.
If that's the case then we can just eradicate people living on the margins, since they are a net drain. Speech considered harmful to society can be forbidden. Medical experiments can be done on prisoners. I'm sure all of this is "self evident truth" to you.
Christ, you're full of shit. I've made it clear over and over again that a business should not have to go through extra expense to accommodate somebody with special needs.
No, you don't, and it is besides the point. That somebody in a wheelchair thinks society should be forced to engineer themselves to accommodate them doesn't mean that the rest of society has to agree or have their spine severed to disagree.
[..] companies who imposed the fine with their immoral lawsuits [..] At least that's what I would do if somebody told me to pay 1.5 million dollars for maintaining a site with links to files that could be used to obtain potentially copyright infringing content.
I love how you guys play the, "I'm not touching you!" defense when they've got their finger almost in the eye of their target. They were called "The Pirate Bay", and their main reason to exist was to allow copyright infringement of commercial materials. When links to such materials were asked to be removed, they publicly told the media lawyers to go fuck themselves. They were also making money on ads, and while they claim it was just to cover costs, there was never any transparency and any site with their traffic should have been a big money maker.
I give these guys credit for being ballsy, but otherwise they were a bunch of leaches.
Later??? ...why at the time did the USA not listen to the 190 other countries who were pointing and screaming at the lies and falsities from day one (and they were obvious)?
I knew somebody would respond with something like this. The mantra behind other countries was "give inspections more time". Saddam was not cooperative at first, and it looked like he was hiding something. When the pressure ratcheted up, he gave more access. I've had this discussion before on Slashdot, and have done the research. This idea that everybody knew Saddam had no WMD is bullshit.
"(both parties are to blame for this)"
no.
Watch Frontline's The Warning sometime. The Democrats and Clinton, along with the Republicans, believed Greenspan and his buddies that regulating the derivatives market wasn't required and would harm business.
Stimulus is about de-leveraging debt through works.
It's about creating more debt in the hopes that it will jumpstart a stalled economy.
Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush.
Holy shit, what cave were you living in? In 2000-2001, the dotcom bubble burst, plunging the country into a recession. In 2001, 9/11 happened. The war in Iraq was a muddled and expensive disaster, and we later found out it was on false pretenses. Iraq was probably the predominant reason Bush's approval ratings were so low near the end of his term. Deficit spending was in full bloom (including the giveaway to big pharma for drug spending when Bush was trying to get re-elected in 2004). The deficit spending under Bush, along with lax oversight of the financial industry (both parties are to blame for this), meant when the crash came we were in a big, big hole.
Of course, the Republicans and Romney think we can untax ourselves out of it with tax breaks to the rich. Yeah, that worked for a bit, until it stopped working and left us with an even bigger bill.
It's not that I think Obama has good answers either (yay, more stimulus spending), but trying to pin this on a Democratic Congress is ridiculous.
I stopped watching after the episode where Stewie was seriously hurt, and instead of getting him to a hospital they kept on trying to cover it up until the whole thing turned into a dead baby sick-and-twisted animation. I put up with the Conway Twitty and other overly-long jokes ridiculousness, but that whole episode was repugnant without being funny at all.
It demands that businesses take extra expenses and create special accommodations for a minority. There's nothing "equal" about that. In a free society, I don't need to have my spine severed to decide against that.
First, you messed up your link. Corrected.
Second, from the start of the article:
"When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of "inert material," harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust."
Emphasis mine. This is not entrapment at all. The attack was his idea. The feds just helped him along to show he was willing to go through with it. It's no different than if somebody asked a bartender about a hitman to kill their spouse, and then the feds supplied them with one.
The Cromitie case is much more dubious, and if it's true he wasn't actively seeking to become a jihadist, I feel it is entrapment. But I also feel that way about cops dropping bills on the subway and arresting people who pick them up and keep them, or cops who leave unlocked vehicles with keys in the ignition in bad neighborhoods.
Because killing somebody is an extreme punishment, and broadening the definition of treason to include non-war acts is a step in the wrong direction. If you want don't want to be killed yourself for political "crimes" against the state, then extend the same respect for life to the politicians themselves.
Furthermore, just what laws are considered unconstitutional are often political matters in flux. Let's just take one example, Roe v. Wade. Do you think the lawmaker responsible for abortion restrictions deserves to die because the court later ruled against it?
It's easy to say these things are "minor" costs when you're not the one paying for them, even if you are indirectly. Many businesses eek out a living on shoestring budgets.
Of course many will fail, but many go on to succeed, and some just hum along making enough profit to stay in business. Every barrier you put in the way makes it that much harder for a business to succeed.
They can't be traded like property.
But they are. It happens all the time.
If I have prior art on that but I have other agreements with you, what you transfered to the other party isn't what you had in the first place.
This is no different than any other complicated ownership arrangement.
Yeah, I mean really, deaf folks pursuing happiness?
I've got nothing against that.
Hearing folks helping them pursue this goal?
There's a big difference between voluntary help and forced help.
Legal persons being subject to the authority that makes their existence possible?
You're missing the part about freedom and pursuing your own happiness. What you are advocating is forcing society at large to make special accommodations for a minority under the guise of being against "discrimination".