xD I once had a fellow student, in a university spanish course, a presentation on the superiority of socialized medicine and the paragon that was Cuba in this; by the end there were a couple highly unamused people in the audience, the first being someone who, as it turned out, had escaped Cuba. The second, as it turned out, was a teacher from South America who knew better than to bite into official propaganda from Cuban (or for that matter, other Latin American) governments. To put it shortly, the questions of each can essentially be summed in, "so, you're that gullible?" He's a reporter now.:(
"Corpations"="groups of people acting in their own interest."
"Groups of people acting in their own interest [ARE] people."
Maybe you missed the part about legal vs. common language being very different, but "person" can be a technical term, referring to an aspect of being rather than the full human shebang: anyone remember a little thing called Roe. v. Wade? "Person" is a legal fiction in and of itself in various respects. Also note the origins being important and evincible in the latinate religious terminology employed in the west, say, for "the trinity", e.g. "one being in three PERSONS" (in Latin, "personae")...which happens to be a body of language and thought from which...our law derives.
The plural "people" is not the plurgal of "person" in legal parlance, unless the term is being used in the law the same as "person" in ordinary speech, and the law never assumes this--in any body or codification thereof--but rather that it is the legal term, unless specified. You're mixing.
When someone says "corporations ARE people", what is meant is "they're run by and composed of people", they are not simply "legal structures". IF it were true (at all times) that all a corporation is is the paper in a lawyer's desk that would be one thing; only certain kinds of "legal structures", however, permit a corporation to exist apart from multiple individuals--and the Feds do not treat them as such at the IRS level. You cannot, like it or not, deny any aggregation of human beings, the right to speak in their interest--disliking their perceived power or not. I disliked the fact that the democrat-appendage called a 'union' unlawfully was stealing wages and literally told me "fuck you" for demanding that I not forcibly have 'back dues' removed from my check for a period I was not part of the union nor obligated under any contract (bound by any agreement) to pay them anything, but am I calling for their inability to lobby? Unions, by the way, are actually corporations, didn't you know that? You going to say they have no right to address their government in assembly? Unfortunately for you, we the people, in whatever form, have that right: it's secured by the Constitution itself, which presumes also that it's a fundamental and natural right, so get over it. Also want to point-out, however, that by missing that "are PEOPLE" part, as in "made-up of people", and distracting with the "legal structures" part, that I consider you a troll.
More food for thought, btw, from a guy who spent a great deal of time sitting-around with powerful people (one being a lawyer who tends to know the breaking scoop before the NYT does, another who works with that guy to take-down corporate abuses all the time, and is an auditor for the Feds): let's say I decide to start a non-profit and not pay taxes; I organize a group of people and set to work. Do you think I have to file for the status with the IRS?
Yes? Wrong. All I have to do is operate within the same guidelines as the IRS would normally apply to determine whether an activity is exempt--and maybe not even that and I might still win, and regardless of whether I have that paper for "legal fictionhood"...we would be treated as a "corporation" because...that's what the frick' a corporation is: a group of people. THERE IS that distinct sense of a disliked aggregate of people to be suspected...and from personal experience working within them it's no wonder to me...but that doesn't mean we get to eliminate rights just because they are liable to misbehave: EVERY group of people I've ever run across, secular and religious, charitable or business, public or private...tends to have misbehavior that's rampant.
On the other hand, "corporate personhood" itself--which is not what I was talking about nor said--is itself truly a legal fiction, just as
There's a saying that only fools try to change the world, and therefore only fools change the world. That arrogance, while no good perhaps mostly for them, is good for trying new things or retrying things that perhaps failed due to environment or other interests crushing it (since so much of what people "invent" or "discover" has already been done before or applied or whatever, but is simply unknown to the next guy). I see the same problem (and I don't have an advanced degree): most of those in HR or managerial roles due to an MBA don't know how the company actually runs down below in most places, but at least engineers and coders have a skill that's practically useful and potentially applicable for the good of a company (unlike those whose jobs are to try and control people and often just make their jobs difficult if not impossible if they follow "the book" written by the overlords). Arrogance is no good, but often it is what old men who despise youth who don't subscribe to the same corruptions call those youth. I have a father who is a businessman surrounded by other businessmen, who like to knock me for being a naive youth and start to talk and...get all the details wrong (doesn't help they're sitting-around drinking). This is often what business people do, unfortunately. Then they exclude or lock someone out who'd otherwise excel, and blame it all on that person's arrogance and naivete when they really would have been a boon: along with an accountant I built and implemented a real-time bookkeeping system for him using computers and a year later it's only about 20% in-use, and the more the guy goes along with it the easier things become, yet he and his "wise" and seasoned business buddies all knocked me all that time for not understanding how it would mess-up their workflows, interfere, take too much time, "you just don't get it!" (even though I was constantly working with them). You think I'll ever get the business of those other guys with whom he bantered and slandered my name? THAT is often what business "arrogance" really is--the imagination of old men who simply despise young people, though in my case they called it being naive rather than arrogant.
The naive BS being written all over/.'s walls here is pathetic: corporations really are people (by definition). Despite the rhetoric a corporation of one is even designated (by the IRS et. al.) as a passthrough entity which is treated as a sole proprietorship (e.g. S Corps and other fictions are State-only), and arguing on the grounds that they have a commercial motive that their speech rights should therefore be censured is asanine and dangerous: how about the unions then? They've robbed me and done more harm than the Peter-Principled moron-filled corporations I've had to work for, where at least I was paid to put-up with their bullshit. Here's something to consider:
I worked at Dish at one point. Comcast had colluded with all the apartment and townhome complexes years ago to have the managers and owners ban satellite Dish installations to ensure a large supply of customers all to themselves and ability to charge whatever they liked without fear of competition. So Dish, of course, lobbied as well as funded politicians who intensely despised this sort of scheming (Republican and Democrat) and along with other entities had legislation passed that threw-out such legislation as unlawful AND...properly asserted that it was because holders of properly, rented or not, insofar as not destructive of that property (since it was rented and they had contractual and statutory duties not to damage it), had the right to dispose of it as they pleased--including the installation of satellite dishes, and that no excuses (including aesthetic) could barr them from doing so.
I even worked as a field tech a while and...it was always fund telling some belligerent asshole that he was on the wrong side of the fight (against the Federal government) and to hand him the sheet of paper specifying the relevant statutes and codes of law that correctly declared the agreements (which the complexes and Comcast still attempt to surreptitiously uphold) as unlawful, that the customer--even despite contracts--had a right to have the installation done. We actually had all sorts of tricks to get a signal inside without penetration of walls or anything like that to ensure we could do installs.
Point is, corporations don't just lobby to protect their gravy trains, but to undo those gravy trains too. Hostility against "corporations" simply because they have more money than individuals (which by banding-together in any way could do the same but instead they're buying tv to watch E to get the latest scoop on Miley Cyrus's tits, expensive data plans so they can get more of her tits throughout the day) just evinces your irrationality on this point.
"Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets."
It takes wallets to publish your merits, and you have to do it--especially when reaching out to a few million people at a time. Duh. Those who pretend "corporations" shouldn't donate...are probably just trying to reinstate union privilege. And again, I've only ever [directly] been robbed, shamelessly, by unions: ulnike corporations, and like the cops, they too enjoy total protection and immunity due to pocketing an entire political party, and exist now despite that little power remaining to actually protect and serve the interests of their [coerced] members. I do wish to add though, what particularly I despise about corporation interest donations is that they do try to exclude competition, and usurp to themselves our rights and liberties for their own privileging and profit: this includes not only the for-profits, but many nons, the unions, the business associations and cartels in medical, dental, [banking, bank-finance, finance], real estate, electrical, etc. industries. Hell, we can even count the local towns: their governments impose zoning and other requirements in the name of public safety and general welfare and 'preserving the character of the neighborhood', but really to jack-up prices and assessment valuations to impose more taxes and fund their little schemes and pet projects on the expense of your and my liberties.
Does anyone actually know the composition of the surface, and how strong these things would be vs. how brittle that allows currently used in spacecraft would be at such low temperatures? Perhaps the metal would shatter?
Because there are the Democrats, and there are the Democrats that's actually useful to: they don't hide that they're all-in progressives. As to Soros being a boogeyman, conservatives aren't (by definition) pro-whatever-makes-money: that's what "economic liberals" are for. What Soros did, however, highlights many of the reasons that genuine (i.e. historic) conservatives oppose fiat currencies (oddly an issue over which the Libertarians rightly continue to go apeshit, and for the same reason: they ultimately rob, very poorly, not just the rich--who outinvest the inflation--but the poor who have to SAVE money). Fiat currencies essentially are the paper a government issues in front of the end of the barrel of a gun. And no, it's not about conspiracies: point was, grassroots are rarely "grassroots", but neither does funding from big people make them not grassroots: big people...support what they like, what's in their interests, maybe what comports with their beliefs.
I worked on the Obama Campaign, btw. (I'm sorry, "a non-affiliated progressive cause organization"...which regularly met with the SEIU and other union and organization heads whom we saw meeting with Obama regularly in the news.) I didn't do it because I really supported the guy, but rather because I was damn sure Mittens wouldn't win, and wanted to learn about those "grassroots" processes and political organizations and strategy of which we're touching upon here. Also lived across the street from a Democratic Senator's obudsman here in Colorado. Nice ol'guy. Also, as a Conservative I might've supported OWS being able to...arm and defend itself. If it's a public damn park, after all, it's for public use and consumption: a bunch of nobodies with nothing better to do and no jobs deserve to have some space after all, and that's what the damn "public" spaces are for: the public safety and health and hygiene and all that other bullshit that was pulled out of the Statists' and Courts' butts long ago and leveraged when they cleared-out OWS were, well, statists' inventions...some of us remember Hoovervilles and that we used to treat people who need to camp out as persons worth NOT attacking with vagrancy laws. Tell it to Obama etc. about public parks though, when he closes down open frickin' air parks to play Mr. Dictator isn't getting his way 'cause the house is doing its duty in wielding the purstring power: tells you that he (like the Repubs) don't really consider "public" things "public" at all, but "Government" property--much like they all do your conduct, labor, private business, etc. The problem with OWS is that in the name of inequality and "social" justice they'd empower these monsters more, rather than strengthen the institutions and traditional rights (mostly eroded) which protected us from such abuses.
Yeah, crazy is advocating things disruptive to an establishment which claims anything out of their purview or realm of thought and "wisdom", or what's good for them, is crazy. Crazy is being as equally unmoveable as a set of powers and institutions, and causing them great fear that their sources of income and power will be disrupted by people who just want to be left the flip alone.
You're conflating "big government" with regulation, a common error. Big government is government which tells people what to do and how to do it (regulations); good government is government which warns people what not to do, and what the consequences will be (regulations). Adam Smith wrote of the necessity for regulation to prevent corporations from becoming mobs. Problem with our kind of government is it tells the banks, "we have these ends in mind, regardless what the people want, because it benefits us politically, and our cronies financially, so you'll do things in these ways--you'll also lend to this quota ratio of black to white because just looking at credit scores, though neutral on race, would have a 'disparate impact' on a race, and though no real injustice is involved, it leads to inequality of access to credit, unacceptable to our political platform..." (the Democrats ACTUALLY FUCKING DID THIS).
The point of a "principle" (first matter or rule of conduct) is that it remains unwavering for sake of "the good", for instance: don't kill innocent people. Principles should never be violated if held; they might be changed or superceded with developing wisdom (if we're so lucky); we're more apt to forget them than improve.
Your first statement is a rather unargumentative (i.e. no persuasiveness to it) comment. At least a few millions in America with millions in Europe and elsewhere nowadays care about currency devaluation and manipulation and that, if not formally declared then in substance that using fiat or legal currencies to store value means that they are slowly robbed. And I mean a few million ordinary people, while economists and businesspeople up-high care even more (short term at least). Plenty of people may care about it to attempt to hide money but given it's an open transactions system, using unmodified Bitcoin protocol is a bad idea for them.
On the other hand, your second is quite good.
When is the GAO ever correct or, in fact, hold anyone accountable? And why in the world would anyone trust something which does not regard the rule that any measure used for evaluation becomes invalid as a measurement?
[...] Holy cow, you have the idea space mapped out! That's a big chunk of Natural Language Processing and an important step in AI development.... Understanding a sentence emergently in terms of fuzzy concepts that are an internal and internally created symbol of what's "going on", not just using a dictionary and CYC [wikipedia.org]-like rules to figure it out, seems [...]
Like not enough given the symbol-grounding problem.
When you start exposing the fake Constitutionalists in Texas and the rest of the faux-Constitutional Republican party, and doing so using their own gosh-darn buzzwords about Federalism, States' Rights, The People's Rights, Right to Privacy, Security of Papers and Effects--not of the military industrial complex or of favored local businesses and the politicians they support. Essentially though, a smart president could deem all participants in these acts as enemies of the Constitution of the United States and throw them into gitmo forever: even get the Congressmen who created that jacked-up system into there, and perhaps the Supreme Court for being complicit...but then we might have a dictators. The libs hate the fourth because of tax implications though--the amendment that guarantees private un-intruded societies can exist in the US out of reach of their legislative, bureaucratic, and policy interference cannot be tolerated and will be nullified to the fullest extent that threats of force, penalties, and violence that they can muster so fat chance you'll ever EVER get either major party to uphold it without being forced themselves...or the apathetic asshats we're surrounded by to force the issue.
Amendment IV: The one that the current reporting requirements of the IRS (among other legislation, policy, etc.) violate, to which the courts are complicit (an "open conspiracy"--Washingtonites' own phrase).
It's STILL the only way to kill-off that corruption: dry it up (then politically organize until you have enough majority to seek-out, prosecute, and kill the politicians--and judges--involved).;)
Bullshit. It doesn't make sense for the government to set standards because it doesn't make sense for the government to set fares because the real issue is, what the fuck is the government doing in the taxicab business in the first place, besides colluding with private interests unconstitutionally and duping co-conspirators in the courts to sign-off on it? I've ridden tons of cabs and if you call the cabis directly so the company doesn't know, they give LOWER fares.
For the second part you responded to, I was responding to your complaint requiring "illegal forced sharing" and that, in general, that shouldn't be a complaint: it shouldn't be illegal. Besdies that though, there should be little to no required standard of service: if the standards don't meet expectations, just don't use them, as it goes WITH ALMOST ANY OTHER BUSINESS. The only things one could say should be exceptions are life-and-death, e.g. if the card isn't even legally allowed on the road (and for real "rational bases", i.e. it's unsound and a threat to everyone else in actuality), then it shouldn't be on there.
"not long ago, it used to be a free-for-all catching cabs at Union Station after midnight, with cab drivers forcing riders to share cabs, refusing riders based on destination, etc. (all of which is illegal)."
And it shouldn't be. That government in the US treats cabbies and their operations like government property, Public Utilities, etc. (all bullshit) puts these companies (and their drivers) into binds; everywhere this is done service is artificially degraded, segregated between areas (doesn't matter if there is demand to be met--such and such company bribed us off before you did)--e.g. a cabbie drops someone off 20 miles from a location and then can't pick someone up a mile away but has to drive like 15 back into his own zone: cabbies themselves have to work for a state-approved company so get raped in the *** for fees on a cab and dictated to and oh, they're also treated like contractors when really they're controlled employees (and the States and feds involved...know and have never done anything about it: to do so would destroy their licensing/control schemes).
I say let them force sharing: if you don't like it, pay more. That's how a market of people voluntarily doing work and offering services and goods is supposed to work. Frankly, it could make it cheaper: if not, people would go elsewhere (like Uber) rather than crying "it's not what I want, I should go to my legislator to have it made illegal", right? I for one...wouldn't mind splitting fare in a cab myself.
Because enviro-libtards scream due to prejudices about "incinerators" (no qualifications attached...any you add to clarify simply won't register) being bad for tze environmentz.
What I find funny is...fundamentally speaking, given that lie detectors are themselves deceptions and frauds, teaching someone how to "beat" the detection/fraud is itself being fake and, therefore, even if they had [pretended--not even knowing they are pretending] to teach someone how to beat these fake tests thinking that those persons would use those techniques to "beat" tests/evaluations, there would be no crime: just faking with no actual harms resulting. So what you've written...bullshit. (No offense.)
Can't. The average idiot--in fact, the average scientist--is pretty simpleminded: it's like the news which has to present stark dichotomized positions on complex issues to get people to listen and follow and shout at one another and drive-up ratings (aka political speech). Grants would be threatened, careers (that only work by duping millions), nutritional "research" (poorly conducted correlational studies). Putting it another way: Mary Jane may make you really high or think "what's the deal"; coffee may make your heart jitter or not at all (depending on your genetics and the factors around you growing-up); [something] may or may not [something] to some extent [same stuff in parenthesis after coffee comment for almost any given substance normally consider food or drug, here].
^^^^ Real research...would find the various combinations of values for these factors. Don't expect it soon: more of the holisticy "OMG DON'T EAT WHEAT!!!!!! Like, it's got GLUTEN and WE DIDN'T EVOLVE TO EAT THAT STUFF TILL 10,000 YEARS AGO (we have no proper understanding of evolutionary theory or punctuated equilibrium but biologists'll give us pass because we're trying to--and failing--to tie our crap into evolution)" types go into "nutrition" than hard-nosed assholes who think too much and criticize too much for peoples' liking (the kind who tend to...figure stuff out).
It is full of blithering idiots when it comes to climate change: blithering idjuts who were wise enough to make a stink about the initial publications of warming offworld corresponding with that on earth...because it could threaten grants (one on my campus who happened to be world famous started receiving death threats when he took a hard look at it, and changed his mind to deem human activity real, but insignificant); blithering idiots who hide and manipulate data and just make it up (they've got deadlines and entire careers that can go out the window: the university is about the furthest place from where people will care for you as there is); blithering idiots who know damn well (I've talked to a few at some prestigious research institutions with labs that are influential in this crap--it's good to have friends) that the models are bullshit, because even with all the apparently complexity and supercomputers running them, relative to actual conditions they're simplistic guesswork: Freeman flippin' Dyson brought this up and despite being a physicist had climate scientists screaming that he was unqualified because "you're not a climate scientists!!!!" The last one I spoke with said that since there is little to no actual data or modelling on the effects of biota on all this (which are terribly important and well-known to be), that existing studies correlate a little between them and changes but can't scale or adjust as biology would, and don't take particulates into account (exceedingly important, diverse, and...really hard to include) at all, he doesn't understand why they even get any funding: except the politics and that they engage in FUDing everyone.
Either way, things CAN'T change (regards human activity) even if we are affecting things in terrible ways, fast enough to undo any of it: billions of people are struggling to survive/eat still, s owe might as well just try to fix things, build dikes, walls, and ways for swimming things to get-through to somewhat-preserve ecosystems, and try to get along with an earth that actually really genuinely is-acknowledge-as-truly-started start to warm before any of the industrial revolutions began. It's not anti-science but realism. The Indonesians, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, "Indians" (in quotes because that place is far from a nation-state), etc. all need to keep developing, so the do-gooders here either get over it (and stop hindering development and direct funds instead into fundamental research as well as practical developments to mitigate harms as much as possible) or get left behind.
Slashdot Mirror
xD I once had a fellow student, in a university spanish course, a presentation on the superiority of socialized medicine and the paragon that was Cuba in this; by the end there were a couple highly unamused people in the audience, the first being someone who, as it turned out, had escaped Cuba. The second, as it turned out, was a teacher from South America who knew better than to bite into official propaganda from Cuban (or for that matter, other Latin American) governments. To put it shortly, the questions of each can essentially be summed in, "so, you're that gullible?" He's a reporter now. :(
"Corpations"="groups of people acting in their own interest."
"Groups of people acting in their own interest [ARE] people."
Maybe you missed the part about legal vs. common language being very different, but "person" can be a technical term, referring to an aspect of being rather than the full human shebang: anyone remember a little thing called Roe. v. Wade? "Person" is a legal fiction in and of itself in various respects. Also note the origins being important and evincible in the latinate religious terminology employed in the west, say, for "the trinity", e.g. "one being in three PERSONS" (in Latin, "personae")...which happens to be a body of language and thought from which...our law derives.
The plural "people" is not the plurgal of "person" in legal parlance, unless the term is being used in the law the same as "person" in ordinary speech, and the law never assumes this--in any body or codification thereof--but rather that it is the legal term, unless specified. You're mixing.
When someone says "corporations ARE people", what is meant is "they're run by and composed of people", they are not simply "legal structures". IF it were true (at all times) that all a corporation is is the paper in a lawyer's desk that would be one thing; only certain kinds of "legal structures", however, permit a corporation to exist apart from multiple individuals--and the Feds do not treat them as such at the IRS level. You cannot, like it or not, deny any aggregation of human beings, the right to speak in their interest--disliking their perceived power or not. I disliked the fact that the democrat-appendage called a 'union' unlawfully was stealing wages and literally told me "fuck you" for demanding that I not forcibly have 'back dues' removed from my check for a period I was not part of the union nor obligated under any contract (bound by any agreement) to pay them anything, but am I calling for their inability to lobby? Unions, by the way, are actually corporations, didn't you know that? You going to say they have no right to address their government in assembly? Unfortunately for you, we the people, in whatever form, have that right: it's secured by the Constitution itself, which presumes also that it's a fundamental and natural right, so get over it. Also want to point-out, however, that by missing that "are PEOPLE" part, as in "made-up of people", and distracting with the "legal structures" part, that I consider you a troll.
More food for thought, btw, from a guy who spent a great deal of time sitting-around with powerful people (one being a lawyer who tends to know the breaking scoop before the NYT does, another who works with that guy to take-down corporate abuses all the time, and is an auditor for the Feds): let's say I decide to start a non-profit and not pay taxes; I organize a group of people and set to work. Do you think I have to file for the status with the IRS?
Yes? Wrong. All I have to do is operate within the same guidelines as the IRS would normally apply to determine whether an activity is exempt--and maybe not even that and I might still win, and regardless of whether I have that paper for "legal fictionhood"...we would be treated as a "corporation" because...that's what the frick' a corporation is: a group of people. THERE IS that distinct sense of a disliked aggregate of people to be suspected...and from personal experience working within them it's no wonder to me...but that doesn't mean we get to eliminate rights just because they are liable to misbehave: EVERY group of people I've ever run across, secular and religious, charitable or business, public or private...tends to have misbehavior that's rampant.
On the other hand, "corporate personhood" itself--which is not what I was talking about nor said--is itself truly a legal fiction, just as
There's a saying that only fools try to change the world, and therefore only fools change the world. That arrogance, while no good perhaps mostly for them, is good for trying new things or retrying things that perhaps failed due to environment or other interests crushing it (since so much of what people "invent" or "discover" has already been done before or applied or whatever, but is simply unknown to the next guy). I see the same problem (and I don't have an advanced degree): most of those in HR or managerial roles due to an MBA don't know how the company actually runs down below in most places, but at least engineers and coders have a skill that's practically useful and potentially applicable for the good of a company (unlike those whose jobs are to try and control people and often just make their jobs difficult if not impossible if they follow "the book" written by the overlords). Arrogance is no good, but often it is what old men who despise youth who don't subscribe to the same corruptions call those youth. I have a father who is a businessman surrounded by other businessmen, who like to knock me for being a naive youth and start to talk and...get all the details wrong (doesn't help they're sitting-around drinking). This is often what business people do, unfortunately. Then they exclude or lock someone out who'd otherwise excel, and blame it all on that person's arrogance and naivete when they really would have been a boon: along with an accountant I built and implemented a real-time bookkeeping system for him using computers and a year later it's only about 20% in-use, and the more the guy goes along with it the easier things become, yet he and his "wise" and seasoned business buddies all knocked me all that time for not understanding how it would mess-up their workflows, interfere, take too much time, "you just don't get it!" (even though I was constantly working with them). You think I'll ever get the business of those other guys with whom he bantered and slandered my name? THAT is often what business "arrogance" really is--the imagination of old men who simply despise young people, though in my case they called it being naive rather than arrogant.
I worked at Dish at one point. Comcast had colluded with all the apartment and townhome complexes years ago to have the managers and owners ban satellite Dish installations to ensure a large supply of customers all to themselves and ability to charge whatever they liked without fear of competition. So Dish, of course, lobbied as well as funded politicians who intensely despised this sort of scheming (Republican and Democrat) and along with other entities had legislation passed that threw-out such legislation as unlawful AND...properly asserted that it was because holders of properly, rented or not, insofar as not destructive of that property (since it was rented and they had contractual and statutory duties not to damage it), had the right to dispose of it as they pleased--including the installation of satellite dishes, and that no excuses (including aesthetic) could barr them from doing so.
I even worked as a field tech a while and...it was always fund telling some belligerent asshole that he was on the wrong side of the fight (against the Federal government) and to hand him the sheet of paper specifying the relevant statutes and codes of law that correctly declared the agreements (which the complexes and Comcast still attempt to surreptitiously uphold) as unlawful, that the customer--even despite contracts--had a right to have the installation done. We actually had all sorts of tricks to get a signal inside without penetration of walls or anything like that to ensure we could do installs.
Point is, corporations don't just lobby to protect their gravy trains, but to undo those gravy trains too. Hostility against "corporations" simply because they have more money than individuals (which by banding-together in any way could do the same but instead they're buying tv to watch E to get the latest scoop on Miley Cyrus's tits, expensive data plans so they can get more of her tits throughout the day) just evinces your irrationality on this point.
It takes wallets to publish your merits, and you have to do it--especially when reaching out to a few million people at a time. Duh. Those who pretend "corporations" shouldn't donate...are probably just trying to reinstate union privilege. And again, I've only ever [directly] been robbed, shamelessly, by unions: ulnike corporations, and like the cops, they too enjoy total protection and immunity due to pocketing an entire political party, and exist now despite that little power remaining to actually protect and serve the interests of their [coerced] members. I do wish to add though, what particularly I despise about corporation interest donations is that they do try to exclude competition, and usurp to themselves our rights and liberties for their own privileging and profit: this includes not only the for-profits, but many nons, the unions, the business associations and cartels in medical, dental, [banking, bank-finance, finance], real estate, electrical, etc. industries. Hell, we can even count the local towns: their governments impose zoning and other requirements in the name of public safety and general welfare and 'preserving the character of the neighborhood', but really to jack-up prices and assessment valuations to impose more taxes and fund their little schemes and pet projects on the expense of your and my liberties.
Respectfully.
Does anyone actually know the composition of the surface, and how strong these things would be vs. how brittle that allows currently used in spacecraft would be at such low temperatures? Perhaps the metal would shatter?
Because there are the Democrats, and there are the Democrats that's actually useful to: they don't hide that they're all-in progressives. As to Soros being a boogeyman, conservatives aren't (by definition) pro-whatever-makes-money: that's what "economic liberals" are for. What Soros did, however, highlights many of the reasons that genuine (i.e. historic) conservatives oppose fiat currencies (oddly an issue over which the Libertarians rightly continue to go apeshit, and for the same reason: they ultimately rob, very poorly, not just the rich--who outinvest the inflation--but the poor who have to SAVE money). Fiat currencies essentially are the paper a government issues in front of the end of the barrel of a gun. And no, it's not about conspiracies: point was, grassroots are rarely "grassroots", but neither does funding from big people make them not grassroots: big people...support what they like, what's in their interests, maybe what comports with their beliefs.
I worked on the Obama Campaign, btw. (I'm sorry, "a non-affiliated progressive cause organization"...which regularly met with the SEIU and other union and organization heads whom we saw meeting with Obama regularly in the news.) I didn't do it because I really supported the guy, but rather because I was damn sure Mittens wouldn't win, and wanted to learn about those "grassroots" processes and political organizations and strategy of which we're touching upon here. Also lived across the street from a Democratic Senator's obudsman here in Colorado. Nice ol'guy. Also, as a Conservative I might've supported OWS being able to...arm and defend itself. If it's a public damn park, after all, it's for public use and consumption: a bunch of nobodies with nothing better to do and no jobs deserve to have some space after all, and that's what the damn "public" spaces are for: the public safety and health and hygiene and all that other bullshit that was pulled out of the Statists' and Courts' butts long ago and leveraged when they cleared-out OWS were, well, statists' inventions...some of us remember Hoovervilles and that we used to treat people who need to camp out as persons worth NOT attacking with vagrancy laws. Tell it to Obama etc. about public parks though, when he closes down open frickin' air parks to play Mr. Dictator isn't getting his way 'cause the house is doing its duty in wielding the purstring power: tells you that he (like the Repubs) don't really consider "public" things "public" at all, but "Government" property--much like they all do your conduct, labor, private business, etc. The problem with OWS is that in the name of inequality and "social" justice they'd empower these monsters more, rather than strengthen the institutions and traditional rights (mostly eroded) which protected us from such abuses.
OWS isn't getting top-down Democratic support and monies flowing-in from George Soros et. al, are they?
Yeah, crazy is advocating things disruptive to an establishment which claims anything out of their purview or realm of thought and "wisdom", or what's good for them, is crazy. Crazy is being as equally unmoveable as a set of powers and institutions, and causing them great fear that their sources of income and power will be disrupted by people who just want to be left the flip alone.
You're conflating "big government" with regulation, a common error. Big government is government which tells people what to do and how to do it (regulations); good government is government which warns people what not to do, and what the consequences will be (regulations). Adam Smith wrote of the necessity for regulation to prevent corporations from becoming mobs. Problem with our kind of government is it tells the banks, "we have these ends in mind, regardless what the people want, because it benefits us politically, and our cronies financially, so you'll do things in these ways--you'll also lend to this quota ratio of black to white because just looking at credit scores, though neutral on race, would have a 'disparate impact' on a race, and though no real injustice is involved, it leads to inequality of access to credit, unacceptable to our political platform..." (the Democrats ACTUALLY FUCKING DID THIS).
The point of a "principle" (first matter or rule of conduct) is that it remains unwavering for sake of "the good", for instance: don't kill innocent people. Principles should never be violated if held; they might be changed or superceded with developing wisdom (if we're so lucky); we're more apt to forget them than improve.
Your first statement is a rather unargumentative (i.e. no persuasiveness to it) comment. At least a few millions in America with millions in Europe and elsewhere nowadays care about currency devaluation and manipulation and that, if not formally declared then in substance that using fiat or legal currencies to store value means that they are slowly robbed. And I mean a few million ordinary people, while economists and businesspeople up-high care even more (short term at least). Plenty of people may care about it to attempt to hide money but given it's an open transactions system, using unmodified Bitcoin protocol is a bad idea for them. On the other hand, your second is quite good.
When is the GAO ever correct or, in fact, hold anyone accountable? And why in the world would anyone trust something which does not regard the rule that any measure used for evaluation becomes invalid as a measurement?
[...] Holy cow, you have the idea space mapped out! That's a big chunk of Natural Language Processing and an important step in AI development. ... Understanding a sentence emergently in terms of fuzzy concepts that are an internal and internally created symbol of what's "going on", not just using a dictionary and CYC [wikipedia.org]-like rules to figure it out, seems [...]
Like not enough given the symbol-grounding problem.
When you start exposing the fake Constitutionalists in Texas and the rest of the faux-Constitutional Republican party, and doing so using their own gosh-darn buzzwords about Federalism, States' Rights, The People's Rights, Right to Privacy, Security of Papers and Effects--not of the military industrial complex or of favored local businesses and the politicians they support. Essentially though, a smart president could deem all participants in these acts as enemies of the Constitution of the United States and throw them into gitmo forever: even get the Congressmen who created that jacked-up system into there, and perhaps the Supreme Court for being complicit...but then we might have a dictators. The libs hate the fourth because of tax implications though--the amendment that guarantees private un-intruded societies can exist in the US out of reach of their legislative, bureaucratic, and policy interference cannot be tolerated and will be nullified to the fullest extent that threats of force, penalties, and violence that they can muster so fat chance you'll ever EVER get either major party to uphold it without being forced themselves...or the apathetic asshats we're surrounded by to force the issue.
Amendment IV: The one that the current reporting requirements of the IRS (among other legislation, policy, etc.) violate, to which the courts are complicit (an "open conspiracy"--Washingtonites' own phrase).
Notice the ;) in the above comment.
It's STILL the only way to kill-off that corruption: dry it up (then politically organize until you have enough majority to seek-out, prosecute, and kill the politicians--and judges--involved). ;)
The logic is wrong. IF it makes no sense for the government to set price (which it does) THEN it still makes no sense to set standards. Just saying.
Bullshit. It doesn't make sense for the government to set standards because it doesn't make sense for the government to set fares because the real issue is, what the fuck is the government doing in the taxicab business in the first place, besides colluding with private interests unconstitutionally and duping co-conspirators in the courts to sign-off on it? I've ridden tons of cabs and if you call the cabis directly so the company doesn't know, they give LOWER fares.
For the second part you responded to, I was responding to your complaint requiring "illegal forced sharing" and that, in general, that shouldn't be a complaint: it shouldn't be illegal. Besdies that though, there should be little to no required standard of service: if the standards don't meet expectations, just don't use them, as it goes WITH ALMOST ANY OTHER BUSINESS. The only things one could say should be exceptions are life-and-death, e.g. if the card isn't even legally allowed on the road (and for real "rational bases", i.e. it's unsound and a threat to everyone else in actuality), then it shouldn't be on there.
"not long ago, it used to be a free-for-all catching cabs at Union Station after midnight, with cab drivers forcing riders to share cabs, refusing riders based on destination, etc. (all of which is illegal)."
And it shouldn't be. That government in the US treats cabbies and their operations like government property, Public Utilities, etc. (all bullshit) puts these companies (and their drivers) into binds; everywhere this is done service is artificially degraded, segregated between areas (doesn't matter if there is demand to be met--such and such company bribed us off before you did)--e.g. a cabbie drops someone off 20 miles from a location and then can't pick someone up a mile away but has to drive like 15 back into his own zone: cabbies themselves have to work for a state-approved company so get raped in the *** for fees on a cab and dictated to and oh, they're also treated like contractors when really they're controlled employees (and the States and feds involved...know and have never done anything about it: to do so would destroy their licensing/control schemes).
I say let them force sharing: if you don't like it, pay more. That's how a market of people voluntarily doing work and offering services and goods is supposed to work. Frankly, it could make it cheaper: if not, people would go elsewhere (like Uber) rather than crying "it's not what I want, I should go to my legislator to have it made illegal", right? I for one...wouldn't mind splitting fare in a cab myself.
Because enviro-libtards scream due to prejudices about "incinerators" (no qualifications attached...any you add to clarify simply won't register) being bad for tze environmentz.
What I find funny is...fundamentally speaking, given that lie detectors are themselves deceptions and frauds, teaching someone how to "beat" the detection/fraud is itself being fake and, therefore, even if they had [pretended--not even knowing they are pretending] to teach someone how to beat these fake tests thinking that those persons would use those techniques to "beat" tests/evaluations, there would be no crime: just faking with no actual harms resulting. So what you've written...bullshit. (No offense.)
Can't. The average idiot--in fact, the average scientist--is pretty simpleminded: it's like the news which has to present stark dichotomized positions on complex issues to get people to listen and follow and shout at one another and drive-up ratings (aka political speech). Grants would be threatened, careers (that only work by duping millions), nutritional "research" (poorly conducted correlational studies). Putting it another way: Mary Jane may make you really high or think "what's the deal"; coffee may make your heart jitter or not at all (depending on your genetics and the factors around you growing-up); [something] may or may not [something] to some extent [same stuff in parenthesis after coffee comment for almost any given substance normally consider food or drug, here]. ^^^^ Real research...would find the various combinations of values for these factors. Don't expect it soon: more of the holisticy "OMG DON'T EAT WHEAT!!!!!! Like, it's got GLUTEN and WE DIDN'T EVOLVE TO EAT THAT STUFF TILL 10,000 YEARS AGO (we have no proper understanding of evolutionary theory or punctuated equilibrium but biologists'll give us pass because we're trying to--and failing--to tie our crap into evolution)" types go into "nutrition" than hard-nosed assholes who think too much and criticize too much for peoples' liking (the kind who tend to...figure stuff out).
It is full of blithering idiots when it comes to climate change: blithering idjuts who were wise enough to make a stink about the initial publications of warming offworld corresponding with that on earth...because it could threaten grants (one on my campus who happened to be world famous started receiving death threats when he took a hard look at it, and changed his mind to deem human activity real, but insignificant); blithering idiots who hide and manipulate data and just make it up (they've got deadlines and entire careers that can go out the window: the university is about the furthest place from where people will care for you as there is); blithering idiots who know damn well (I've talked to a few at some prestigious research institutions with labs that are influential in this crap--it's good to have friends) that the models are bullshit, because even with all the apparently complexity and supercomputers running them, relative to actual conditions they're simplistic guesswork: Freeman flippin' Dyson brought this up and despite being a physicist had climate scientists screaming that he was unqualified because "you're not a climate scientists!!!!" The last one I spoke with said that since there is little to no actual data or modelling on the effects of biota on all this (which are terribly important and well-known to be), that existing studies correlate a little between them and changes but can't scale or adjust as biology would, and don't take particulates into account (exceedingly important, diverse, and...really hard to include) at all, he doesn't understand why they even get any funding: except the politics and that they engage in FUDing everyone.
Either way, things CAN'T change (regards human activity) even if we are affecting things in terrible ways, fast enough to undo any of it: billions of people are struggling to survive/eat still, s owe might as well just try to fix things, build dikes, walls, and ways for swimming things to get-through to somewhat-preserve ecosystems, and try to get along with an earth that actually really genuinely is-acknowledge-as-truly-started start to warm before any of the industrial revolutions began. It's not anti-science but realism. The Indonesians, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, "Indians" (in quotes because that place is far from a nation-state), etc. all need to keep developing, so the do-gooders here either get over it (and stop hindering development and direct funds instead into fundamental research as well as practical developments to mitigate harms as much as possible) or get left behind.