No, libertarians would say that if you scam me on a medical test, I can sue you.
So you believe patients have the expertise to know that a phony blood test is phony? How about a patent medicine? How exactly would a consumer know that snake oil is snake oil in the absence of regulation?
and that story ends with the boy getting eaten... by a wolf.
Exactly. And the wolves are at the door, but the people who should be doing something about it chose to nominate a vulgar talking yam instead of taking their responsibility seriously.
And that's why they left facebook, to live in their bubble.
Except nobody left Facebook. It's just a bunch of people posting their Goodbye Cruel World messages - on Facebook. Then checking in to see how many "likes" they got for quitting Facebook. And then rage-quitting for ten minutes.
That's been obvious for a while really, and most conservatives have left Facebook/Twitter/etc to avoid supporting them in any way.
Why hasn't there been a drop in the number of Facebook or Twitter hits daily?
Just realize that social media is a progressive echo chamber these days
Claiming the media is against you is a well-established political sport. It's just noise. We live in a world now where everything that we don't like must be a conspiracy, because our feelings can't possibly be wrong.
What you gather is not the standard. Fortunately there are actual law enforcement professionals doing the gathering, and analysis, and making decisions about federal prosecutions.
I also question the motives of the people saying she should not be indicted.
Did you question the motives of the people who spent $7.7 million on seven investigations, thirteen hearings generating 25,000 documents on Benghazi? I don't remember that.
Maybe the problem is that people have been crafting bogus scandals regarding the Clintons for 25 years, covering everything from cocaine dealing to securities fraud to murder. Do you question their motivations? Because what you're seeing now may be something of a Boy Who Cried Wolf effect.
I'm not saying I'm a Trump supporter, but he did have a point in that Disney didn't catch hell for using the same star on a Frozen sticker book.
Disney didn't get their image from a neo-nazi forum.
Anyway, the people for whom the Trump Star of David was meant got the message loud and clear. Donald Trump may not be a bigot, but he's number 1 with bigots.
if she was doing what people are saying she did, yeah, she should get charged for it.
The problem is that the "people" who are saying what she did have not seen the evidence. And the people who have seen the evidence are saying, "Nah, bro, she's sloppy, but not we don't have enough for a conviction".
Nobody's telling you not to speak out. Ever since the OJ trial, television viewers have appointed themselves legal experts, so it's par for the course that dopes who get their news from alt-right websites are now suddenly Learned Hand.
Anyway, I can relate. I still can't believe Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't face prosecution for actual war crimes. And while we're at it, can we petition the Justice Department to look into Donald Trump's rape of a 13 year-old girl? This is the first time in US history that a candidate for president is being accused of rape of an actual child.
If Trump has done what people say he's done, shouldn't he be indicted, or at least investigated? If "what people say" is a standard, then we're all fucked.
Except the purpose of the petition is to provoke an official response from the White House, not prosecute anyone...
There's already been an official response from the White House (Justice Department). Somebody you don't like didn't get prosecuted, so the petition (if you read it) is to demand prosecution.
You're correct. Fascists would never subject their tyranny to popular vote.
Of course I'm right. Neither should any prosecution in a free society be done by popular vote. It's why we have judges (Justice Department) and juries (grand juries) and the decision is made by people who've actually heard and seen the evidence in court instead of seeing it on Fox News.
The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that nothing really important ever got to a popular vote. They certainly didn't put the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a popular vote. Do you know why? Because there are enough people in this country who are stupid enough to think that the decision to prosecute someone should be put to a plebiscite.
Also, since when is it a bad thing to petition the government to enforce its own laws? Are the ruling class above the law?
So, whenever the FBI and the Justice Department don't prosecute someone you don't like, there should be a popular vote on whether to prosecute? No need to look at evidence, no need to take testimony, just listen to talk radio and if they say, "guilty" you say, "how high?"
That's the sort of thing that happened before there was anything like the FDA.
The FDA was created in 1906. I don't know what kind of blood tests they had back then, but my guess is that there were a LOT of bogus medical procedures and products before then.
Nor do I. I am well-known for only using necessary profanity.
But you've got to be browsing at a completely uncensored level to get the joke. I was basically just giving my commentary on the middle-school insults a pair of ACs were throwing back and forth. As always, I was simply trying to raise the level of discourse here on Slashdot by taking lemons - two lemons to be exact - and dipping them into the gaping mouths of a couple of goofballs, to make what I like to call "AC lemonade".
And by "credit card", you mean the insecure, expensive, fraud-prone payment mechanism created by a small number of monopolistic companies and their government cronies; you know, what arrogant rich people like you use.
Naw, man. I use currency. I just figured that would be way to much work for your average Wal-Mart shopper, what with the counting and the gazintas and everything. Plus, those bills get heavy, you know, and the average Wal-Mart shopper has the muscle definition of a frond under all that avoirdupois.
Well, we're going to have to leave it there. Clearly there are two sides to this issue: 1) balls in your mouth and 2) dicks in your ass.
After the break, we'll be joined by Eric Trump to explain why his father totally wasn't being anti-semitic by using that jew star. Then, our full panel will revisit the controversy, "Balls in your mouth, or dicks in your ass?"
Slashdot Mirror
That would violate Article XII of the Constitution.
So you believe patients have the expertise to know that a phony blood test is phony? How about a patent medicine? How exactly would a consumer know that snake oil is snake oil in the absence of regulation?
Nonsense. When during the past eight years did you not think Hillary would be running for president again?
Exactly. And the wolves are at the door, but the people who should be doing something about it chose to nominate a vulgar talking yam instead of taking their responsibility seriously.
Except nobody left Facebook. It's just a bunch of people posting their Goodbye Cruel World messages - on Facebook. Then checking in to see how many "likes" they got for quitting Facebook. And then rage-quitting for ten minutes.
Why hasn't there been a drop in the number of Facebook or Twitter hits daily?
Claiming the media is against you is a well-established political sport. It's just noise. We live in a world now where everything that we don't like must be a conspiracy, because our feelings can't possibly be wrong.
What you gather is not the standard. Fortunately there are actual law enforcement professionals doing the gathering, and analysis, and making decisions about federal prosecutions.
Did you question the motives of the people who spent $7.7 million on seven investigations, thirteen hearings generating 25,000 documents on Benghazi? I don't remember that.
Maybe the problem is that people have been crafting bogus scandals regarding the Clintons for 25 years, covering everything from cocaine dealing to securities fraud to murder. Do you question their motivations? Because what you're seeing now may be something of a Boy Who Cried Wolf effect.
Exactly. Thus, #Benghazi, #Emailgate.
You just answered your own unspoken question.
Disney didn't get their image from a neo-nazi forum.
Anyway, the people for whom the Trump Star of David was meant got the message loud and clear. Donald Trump may not be a bigot, but he's number 1 with bigots.
https://theweek.com/speedreads...
Every six years, you can completely change the government. Every single elected official can be voted out of office.
The problem is that the "people" who are saying what she did have not seen the evidence. And the people who have seen the evidence are saying, "Nah, bro, she's sloppy, but not we don't have enough for a conviction".
Nobody's telling you not to speak out. Ever since the OJ trial, television viewers have appointed themselves legal experts, so it's par for the course that dopes who get their news from alt-right websites are now suddenly Learned Hand.
Anyway, I can relate. I still can't believe Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't face prosecution for actual war crimes. And while we're at it, can we petition the Justice Department to look into Donald Trump's rape of a 13 year-old girl? This is the first time in US history that a candidate for president is being accused of rape of an actual child.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/...
If Trump has done what people say he's done, shouldn't he be indicted, or at least investigated? If "what people say" is a standard, then we're all fucked.
Balls 2016
https://youtu.be/PfsTk5i7mPw
The fact that he refers to his Jewish son-in-law as "my Jew" does not speak in his favor.
And don't forget:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/his...
I think you mean, "obvious to anyone who's been following the case on Fox News" or at /pol/
There's already been an official response from the White House (Justice Department). Somebody you don't like didn't get prosecuted, so the petition (if you read it) is to demand prosecution.
Of course I'm right. Neither should any prosecution in a free society be done by popular vote. It's why we have judges (Justice Department) and juries (grand juries) and the decision is made by people who've actually heard and seen the evidence in court instead of seeing it on Fox News.
The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that nothing really important ever got to a popular vote. They certainly didn't put the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a popular vote. Do you know why? Because there are enough people in this country who are stupid enough to think that the decision to prosecute someone should be put to a plebiscite.
So, whenever the FBI and the Justice Department don't prosecute someone you don't like, there should be a popular vote on whether to prosecute? No need to look at evidence, no need to take testimony, just listen to talk radio and if they say, "guilty" you say, "how high?"
The FDA was created in 1906. I don't know what kind of blood tests they had back then, but my guess is that there were a LOT of bogus medical procedures and products before then.
Nor do I. I am well-known for only using necessary profanity.
But you've got to be browsing at a completely uncensored level to get the joke. I was basically just giving my commentary on the middle-school insults a pair of ACs were throwing back and forth. As always, I was simply trying to raise the level of discourse here on Slashdot by taking lemons - two lemons to be exact - and dipping them into the gaping mouths of a couple of goofballs, to make what I like to call "AC lemonade".
Naw, man. I use currency. I just figured that would be way to much work for your average Wal-Mart shopper, what with the counting and the gazintas and everything. Plus, those bills get heavy, you know, and the average Wal-Mart shopper has the muscle definition of a frond under all that avoirdupois.
And before you ask me for a citation...
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com...
Slashdot is the best place for serious political discussion.
Criminal prosecution by popular vote. There's absolutely nothing fascist about that.
Well, we're going to have to leave it there. Clearly there are two sides to this issue: 1) balls in your mouth and 2) dicks in your ass.
After the break, we'll be joined by Eric Trump to explain why his father totally wasn't being anti-semitic by using that jew star. Then, our full panel will revisit the controversy, "Balls in your mouth, or dicks in your ass?"
Fox News. Fair and Balanced.