So, for better or worse, I don't know what nation you live in but it's certainly not the United States of America. No, they've been working on reducing the right to free speech for quite a long time. It's probably not too late to stop it without bloodshed but I doubt cooler heads will prevail and I suspect we'll slide toward greater and greater tyranny and control. It also seems likely that it will be at least partially at the behest of the majority or, at the very least, a very vocal minority.
If I had to, I'd further speculate that such is the natural progression of governance. There's a pendulum and, quite often, the pendulum swings with violence. I'd even suggest that if we could stop the pendulum before it swung too far then there would be less violence. That'd require rational actors and humans are not rational beings, they're rationalizing beings.
Yes, I can see it now. All the local women out there pointing, laughing, and poking fun at the ISIS members as they walk down the street, fresh from beheading a homosexual boy and those ISIS members being so ashamed that they run and hide their faces in their mother's skirts.
Boy, making fun of 'em for being named after an Egyptian Goddess is high on their list of dislikes! They're certainly cowed by the jokes, innuendo, and tittering from the teen girls that line the streets and the hordes of old men who sip coffee and play Pinochle all day.
It'd probably even make them think twice about what they're doing! Those silly gooses!
On a more serious note, I'm actually sure more than one person has cracked jokes about it. I just pretty sure they'll happily use it as an excuse to be outraged and do some apostate murdering as their chosen method of recourse. I'm also guessing that those close enough to actually make said jokes are more concerned with keeping their lives than they are at making witty remarks and clowning around. But, you know, that's just a hunch.;-)
The corporations can steal it from you and the government can beat it out of you. Seems like a rather rowdy buggering no matter which way you go, doesn't it?
I wonder how long the company held onto the transacted funds and collected interest on said funds and I wonder what happened to the transaction fee. I've never used the application, I admit, but I'm betting there was a transaction fee associated with it as well. It might not be much with this one person but how often does this sort of thing happen and how much money is actually made by this?
That's true but the complaint here seems to be ISIS. Now, I can make a reasoned argument that one should be allowed to send funds to ISIS. I could, I could make that argument. I could even make it sound good. Can you do that?
'Cause this leads me to next point...
I like drugs as much as the next person - and probably more than most but how'd you get to drugs from ISIS? Are you gonna make the argument that it's about poppy growth and not about head chopping off? Or... 'Cause I'm not actually sure what that has to do with this story which is OFAC and ISIS.
I mean, you made a good point and all but are you sure you're in the right thread? Drugs will do that to you. I speak from experience. and I suspect I've the posting history to prove it, that posting while inebriated will make you do some screwy shit. But, yeah... I'm not really seeing a clear connection between this particular event and drugs - though I'm guessing they probably do the same thing for drugs, that's not actually material to this particular event. It does look good and it's hard to argue with it but it's just not actually the topic.
Err... Let me just apologize in advance for that. I'm sorry - but not sorry enough to not do it.
On a more serious note, I bet the rendering farm for this was AWESOME!!! Holy crap... I've seen some previews for the movie and the first thing I thought of was the rendering farm. Wait, no, the first thing I thought of was the original. The second thing I thought of was that I was singing "The Bear Necessities" aloud. The third thing I thought of was probably the rendering farm. I actually went looking to see if anything had been put up online about it but, alas, I found nothing at the time.
That must have taken some serious horsepower. It probably used enough electricity to power a small city for a while. As wasteful as that might be, or seem, it's still very awesome.
As an aside; As a marginally old dude, it's great to have witnessed the vast changes that have taken place during my lifetime. It really is. I don't think it's quite on par with seeing the phone, electricity, powered flight, automobiles, and that sort of stuff - in one lifetime... But, damn, it's kind of close. From a man on the moon to a supercomputer in our pockets. I wonder what my kids will say when they're my age and looking back.
At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.
I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.
There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.
There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely tourism and educational. I'd sent a bit of money and then was curious about it as I'd not known much more than Black Hawk Down and the news around that from back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So, I went and it was rather eye opening but that's a story for another day.
Then, I'll go so far as to say that Sanders is nominally a member of the Democrats. You can look that up. However, he's quite squarely (politically) in the camp that would be known as the SP-USA/SPA, or whatever they're calling themselves this week - the Socialist Party of America/United States of America. I seem to recall there being a blurb about an American Socialist Party - which is another animal entirely, or so I understand. I am only passingly familiar with the first and not the latter and have no idea if they ever got off the ground but I had a "friend" who was ranting about them for quite a number of years.
At any rate, you can't just assign things to Sanders that aren't true and then try to insist that others be honest. Well, you can, but that's not actually very intellectually honest - now is it? No, Sanders is a member of the Democratic Party. That's the facts and that is only the facts. However, if he were in a more representative party then he'd almost certainly be in the Socialist Party of America though, it'd be in ill-fit with the latest changes within the party, he'd actually fit into the Libertarian Party as a Socialist Libertarian.
You can't just say that he's a member of a party and leave it at that - and expect to have an honest conversation or debate. That's not a valid debate tactic - though it's likely to win against those who aren't actually able to think logically and reason themselves to a good rebuttal. So, I'll give you that - credit where credit is due. However, you're not debating idiots. Well, okay... I'm unfamiliar with the parent poster so it's possible that you are. It's not likely, however.
That said, I shan't spam but I'm in the process of working on a site that encourages and tries to facilitate intelligent discourse *and* civil discussion. It's still very much in the beta stage but if you're interested then let me know by email or whatnot. I do not necessarily agree with your political views but it'd be a pretty boring site if we all agreed, now wouldn't it?
However, I'd agree that Communism is the most murderous of political ideologies in modern times. It might even be the most murderous ever - though I'm not sure if that holds true if we go by percentages. There were some REALLY aggressive tyrants in ye olden days who did some serious damage to population numbers in their respective regions. They may have Communism beaten in a per capita sense but surely not in totality.
I'd agree that Sanders is Socialist but not Communist. He even does us the favor of identifying as a Socialist - and I'm disheartened that he sticks with the Democrats as opposed to being more honest. I'd actually respect him a bit more if he were to represent the Socialist Party of America instead of riding the coattails of the Democrats.
So, I agree that that group might be Communists and such is immaterial. I do not agree that he is a member of that group, currently or in the past. (So far as I know, he's never been a member. Association with is not membership or even implied acceptance or agreement.) Communism is very murderous and an absolutely horrific idea in groups larger than, maybe, 150 to 200 people.
Oh sure, Communism sounds good on paper but it's bullshit in reality. It would only work if everyone agreed and that's not going to happen so it has to rely on force. Any governance by means of force is generally going to allow fewer liberties than are just. Fortunately, Sanders is not a Communist.
I have no idea why they'd want the US to emulate a group of people that bombs themselves into rubble every couple of generations - sometimes more often. If you look at the actions the US has taken, many of them can easily be interpreted as cleaning up after their messes. And yes, that includes the US' activities in the Middle East. The situation there is the result of colonialism and imperialism by the Europeans and then the interventionism done by the League of Nations.
The League of Nations being notable for the distinct lack of US participation - though, oddly, a large number of people seem to think the US was a member. We were not. It's like they think history started in 1990 or something. I guess, that does make it convenient if they want to try to blame others and not accept that their own forefather's are actually the people who caused these conditions. Accountability isn't really seen as a good thing, or so it would seem. People frown on suggesting that people be responsible for themselves. Hopefully, it's a passing fad but I kind of doubt that it is. I also suspect that there were people saying the same thing I'm saying some 1000 years ago.
I kind of pay attention to European politics. How do you figure that he'd be center by European standards? No, he's pretty left - even by European standards. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Though, to be honest, the way that much of Europe has gone about it has resulted in fewer liberties but that's a choice they're free to make.
As someone who will likely be *very* financially impacted by a Sanders' win for presidency, I have to tell you, he's the best chance you have. Your country is crumbling around you, you appear to not notice, and needs repairs. This is going to take additional funds. This is going to take allocating funds wisely. This is going to take someone other than the other candidates that you're being offered.
It's my country too but, should I need to, I've the means to leave or even not be impacted much - regardless. Tax avoidance is both legal and remarkably simple. I don't generally avoid my taxes because that would be a shitty thing to do. I do avoid some of them, the ones I don't personally prefer to pay, but I most generally pay them all. I typically reduce my tax burden to the maximum allowed by donating to charitable causes, in case you're curious. I also don't actually have to spend much money on myself and have learned the power of incorporation, accountants, and a business-oriented lawyer. If you're really curious, I don't mind the taxes so much as I mind how they spend them.
At any rate, you really are *likely* to be better of with Sanders than you are with any other candidate that's actually in the running at this time. You may not like his politics but, really, congress isn't going to let him get away with much. You'd also be hard pressed to find anything that you can feel comfortable saying about his politics on that Jumbotron that you mentioned, unless you're rather inhumane. What, are you going to stand up there and say, "Yes, I want poor people to suffer because I won't contribute an extra $5.00 total, per year, in taxes to help send them to school so that they can better themselves!" You're gonna feel proud to stand up and say that? Really?
Hell, chances are good that you don't even pay much in taxes. Some near 50% of you pay nothing in Federal taxes and very little in State taxes. (Everybody pays some taxes. Of course, the percentage paid is actually worse for the poor people.)
Seriously, I'll get taxed a few more percentage points. That actually adds up to a bit of money. I'm okay with that so long as they spend it wisely. Improving things and making things better in the long-run are what I'd call "wisely." I don't know about you but I kind of prefer the idea of a better future for more than just myself. Me? I'll be all set, thanks. I'll be likely to vote for Sanders because I want *your* kids to have a greater chance at fiscal improvements and because, truth be told, it takes a bit of capital for you to make the most of your freedoms and to appreciate your liberties. Poor people might be free but there's fuck all they can do to enjoy it.
What's that saying? The one about how the law, in its magnanimity, makes illegal for both poor and rich alike to sleep under the bridge?
For the sake of argument, is this really censorship? They're not being prohibited from speaking but are being prohibited from selling. Well, currently they're being threatened with it. I'm of the opinion that Sanders will squash this when it is brought to his attention. This is, currently, lawyers being lawyers.
As for the link that you provided, I've been following that with a bit of attention. That is really disappointing. Germany has some unfortunate regulations surrounding their freedom of speech. I don't think that's really all that similar to this instance, however. This just looks like lawyers being lawyers and will likely be quashed - if it hasn't been already.
Umm... What do you think Arizona's ruling has to do with anything? Arizona could rule that you still had the right to own slaves, it doesn't matter at all. It's a *Federal* statute that still exists - though it is not used. Arizona ruling on it has absolutely no bearing on it other than being a mild curiosity. Further up this sub-thread, I linked to a whole ton of material. It's one of my favorite stupid laws that remains on the books. Arizona can rule all they want, they can also try to catch a fart and paint it green. Their ruling on a Federal law means nothing - even within the State of Arizona. The courts are entirely separate critters and Arizona has no legal authority to overturn Federal legislation.
So, other than a mildly amusing factoid, it's meaningless. The reality is that it is a Federal offense. Of course, the reality is that the Feds don't give a shit but that doesn't make it any less a law. It was a stupid law then and it is a stupid law now but it's still on the books. I suspect that the SCOTUS would chuck it, if it went in front of them. At this point, that has not happened. So, it remains a law, regardless of Arizona's opinion on the subject.
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.
The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History).
In other words, you're actually wrong. Now, the odds of it being prosecuted are nil and the US Communist Party exists to this day. But, it is very, very much a FEDERAL CRIME to be a Communist or a member of the Communist Party in the United States. The Nazi party is fair game, however. You can be a Nazi, if you want, but being a communist is right out.
The Freedom of Speech is more accurately called the Right to Free Speech, for starters. Second, for better or worse, there have been limits imposed on this by the courts. It's important to realize that and acknowledge it if you want to have a meaningful discussion that revolves around reality.
At this point, it's reasonable to presume we'll never see this case reach a court room. The publicity for attempting to quash this will be too negative and so it will not be heard by a judge. The likelihood of this actually going anywhere is so low as to be considered impossible.
That said, the Right to Free Speech does not mean what you seem to think it means. Oh, it says what you think it says. However, reality comes knocking and it has been interpreted to mean something quite different than what it says. That generally happens with idealists and fools. There's this silly thing that I keep referencing, it's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's amazing how it is (seemingly) universally true.
To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.
At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.
Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. That includes the Lady Marines. The Lady Marine will have also had MCT. Fuck with a Lady Marine at your own peril.
What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.
I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.
He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.
Hmm... The only bridge building techniques that I know of, that are novel and being pioneered in Maine, are the ones with the composite arch system and the one they did in Pittsfield on 11 that they called a "bridge in a backpack." (I don't know much about the latter, something about using some sort of cloth that gets filled with concrete and is supposed to have about twice the lifespan before needing maintenance.)
Which bridge do you speak of and how did you hear about this? Or are you the guy who used to live in Maine but moved away, the one that I spoke with a while back and forgot their name? (If so, don't be mad, I forget everything.)
Nominally, yes. They then write that off as a business expense.
I'm not positive but I know that we used to buy things without paying sales tax on it at all - tax exempt purchases, you need a business ID and tax number (which can be your SSN, by the way - should you opt to incorporate) and they'll remove the taxes from your purchase price. Given that I still "own" several corporations, i could probably do this but I just try to remember to keep applicable receipts. I'm not that much of a stickler and I'm pretty lazy.
What I do not know is how this would apply to fuel as the taxes are added at the pump. It wouldn't surprise me if they had their own fuel depot and filled from there. In the case of my business, we simply kept applicable receipts and wrote it off at that point. We were not major fuel consumers or anything similar so we'd have not gone through any special means to get there.
Pick a link, any link. You do not need a guide in Cuba and I know of nothing other than military areas and government buildings/property that is restricted access. My first trip to Cuba was with a tour group. My second was on my own and I meandered about at will and never encountered anywhere that they didn't let me in - and that included a few government buildings.
I'm pretty sure that had I not stopped, I'd either be dead by now or on my way. Something about retiring just made it so that my whole response to it changed. I don't have a clean way to explain it. It's just muddy and I don't really have the words to describe it.
Yeah, I grab stuff and learn it very, very quickly. It's the retention that gets me. If I don't work, legitimately work, to retain it then it's gone. It must still be there, some of it, because sometimes there will be a trigger that reminds me of something and a whole rush of memories will come flooding back. Also, if I write something down then the physical act of writing it means that I remember it longer. If I wrote your number down, I'll remember it in 6 months. If I typed it, entered it into my phone, or just quickly memorized it then it's gone in 6 hours.
But I "learn" very, very quickly. I just don't retain it well. I don't retain it unless I make significant effort to do so.
What dictionary do you use where they're a scam? Do you even know what the word means or do you just apply it to things you do not like? Reddit is over there.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, for better or worse there are some people who seem inclined to take any reference, that is not serious (or perhaps reverent) enough, to be a BAD THING©. In some places, making certain references will get you in trouble. An example would be making a bomb joke in an airport. Probably not gonna be considered funny by anyone - not even if you're a comedian. It's probably going to result in a variety of repercussions.
So, for better or worse, I don't know what nation you live in but it's certainly not the United States of America. No, they've been working on reducing the right to free speech for quite a long time. It's probably not too late to stop it without bloodshed but I doubt cooler heads will prevail and I suspect we'll slide toward greater and greater tyranny and control. It also seems likely that it will be at least partially at the behest of the majority or, at the very least, a very vocal minority.
If I had to, I'd further speculate that such is the natural progression of governance. There's a pendulum and, quite often, the pendulum swings with violence. I'd even suggest that if we could stop the pendulum before it swung too far then there would be less violence. That'd require rational actors and humans are not rational beings, they're rationalizing beings.
Yes, I can see it now. All the local women out there pointing, laughing, and poking fun at the ISIS members as they walk down the street, fresh from beheading a homosexual boy and those ISIS members being so ashamed that they run and hide their faces in their mother's skirts.
Boy, making fun of 'em for being named after an Egyptian Goddess is high on their list of dislikes! They're certainly cowed by the jokes, innuendo, and tittering from the teen girls that line the streets and the hordes of old men who sip coffee and play Pinochle all day.
It'd probably even make them think twice about what they're doing! Those silly gooses!
On a more serious note, I'm actually sure more than one person has cracked jokes about it. I just pretty sure they'll happily use it as an excuse to be outraged and do some apostate murdering as their chosen method of recourse. I'm also guessing that those close enough to actually make said jokes are more concerned with keeping their lives than they are at making witty remarks and clowning around. But, you know, that's just a hunch. ;-)
The corporations can steal it from you and the government can beat it out of you. Seems like a rather rowdy buggering no matter which way you go, doesn't it?
I wonder how long the company held onto the transacted funds and collected interest on said funds and I wonder what happened to the transaction fee. I've never used the application, I admit, but I'm betting there was a transaction fee associated with it as well. It might not be much with this one person but how often does this sort of thing happen and how much money is actually made by this?
That's true but the complaint here seems to be ISIS. Now, I can make a reasoned argument that one should be allowed to send funds to ISIS. I could, I could make that argument. I could even make it sound good. Can you do that?
'Cause this leads me to next point...
I like drugs as much as the next person - and probably more than most but how'd you get to drugs from ISIS? Are you gonna make the argument that it's about poppy growth and not about head chopping off? Or... 'Cause I'm not actually sure what that has to do with this story which is OFAC and ISIS.
I mean, you made a good point and all but are you sure you're in the right thread? Drugs will do that to you. I speak from experience. and I suspect I've the posting history to prove it, that posting while inebriated will make you do some screwy shit. But, yeah... I'm not really seeing a clear connection between this particular event and drugs - though I'm guessing they probably do the same thing for drugs, that's not actually material to this particular event. It does look good and it's hard to argue with it but it's just not actually the topic.
So, I herd u liek mud kipling?
Err... Let me just apologize in advance for that. I'm sorry - but not sorry enough to not do it.
On a more serious note, I bet the rendering farm for this was AWESOME!!! Holy crap... I've seen some previews for the movie and the first thing I thought of was the rendering farm. Wait, no, the first thing I thought of was the original. The second thing I thought of was that I was singing "The Bear Necessities" aloud. The third thing I thought of was probably the rendering farm. I actually went looking to see if anything had been put up online about it but, alas, I found nothing at the time.
That must have taken some serious horsepower. It probably used enough electricity to power a small city for a while. As wasteful as that might be, or seem, it's still very awesome.
As an aside; As a marginally old dude, it's great to have witnessed the vast changes that have taken place during my lifetime. It really is. I don't think it's quite on par with seeing the phone, electricity, powered flight, automobiles, and that sort of stuff - in one lifetime... But, damn, it's kind of close. From a man on the moon to a supercomputer in our pockets. I wonder what my kids will say when they're my age and looking back.
At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.
I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.
There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.
There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely tourism and educational. I'd sent a bit of money and then was curious about it as I'd not known much more than Black Hawk Down and the news around that from back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So, I went and it was rather eye opening but that's a story for another day.
Then, I'll go so far as to say that Sanders is nominally a member of the Democrats. You can look that up. However, he's quite squarely (politically) in the camp that would be known as the SP-USA/SPA, or whatever they're calling themselves this week - the Socialist Party of America/United States of America. I seem to recall there being a blurb about an American Socialist Party - which is another animal entirely, or so I understand. I am only passingly familiar with the first and not the latter and have no idea if they ever got off the ground but I had a "friend" who was ranting about them for quite a number of years.
At any rate, you can't just assign things to Sanders that aren't true and then try to insist that others be honest. Well, you can, but that's not actually very intellectually honest - now is it? No, Sanders is a member of the Democratic Party. That's the facts and that is only the facts. However, if he were in a more representative party then he'd almost certainly be in the Socialist Party of America though, it'd be in ill-fit with the latest changes within the party, he'd actually fit into the Libertarian Party as a Socialist Libertarian.
You can't just say that he's a member of a party and leave it at that - and expect to have an honest conversation or debate. That's not a valid debate tactic - though it's likely to win against those who aren't actually able to think logically and reason themselves to a good rebuttal. So, I'll give you that - credit where credit is due. However, you're not debating idiots. Well, okay... I'm unfamiliar with the parent poster so it's possible that you are. It's not likely, however.
That said, I shan't spam but I'm in the process of working on a site that encourages and tries to facilitate intelligent discourse *and* civil discussion. It's still very much in the beta stage but if you're interested then let me know by email or whatnot. I do not necessarily agree with your political views but it'd be a pretty boring site if we all agreed, now wouldn't it?
However, I'd agree that Communism is the most murderous of political ideologies in modern times. It might even be the most murderous ever - though I'm not sure if that holds true if we go by percentages. There were some REALLY aggressive tyrants in ye olden days who did some serious damage to population numbers in their respective regions. They may have Communism beaten in a per capita sense but surely not in totality.
I'd agree that Sanders is Socialist but not Communist. He even does us the favor of identifying as a Socialist - and I'm disheartened that he sticks with the Democrats as opposed to being more honest. I'd actually respect him a bit more if he were to represent the Socialist Party of America instead of riding the coattails of the Democrats.
So, I agree that that group might be Communists and such is immaterial.
I do not agree that he is a member of that group, currently or in the past. (So far as I know, he's never been a member. Association with is not membership or even implied acceptance or agreement.)
Communism is very murderous and an absolutely horrific idea in groups larger than, maybe, 150 to 200 people.
Oh sure, Communism sounds good on paper but it's bullshit in reality. It would only work if everyone agreed and that's not going to happen so it has to rely on force. Any governance by means of force is generally going to allow fewer liberties than are just. Fortunately, Sanders is not a Communist.
I have no idea why they'd want the US to emulate a group of people that bombs themselves into rubble every couple of generations - sometimes more often. If you look at the actions the US has taken, many of them can easily be interpreted as cleaning up after their messes. And yes, that includes the US' activities in the Middle East. The situation there is the result of colonialism and imperialism by the Europeans and then the interventionism done by the League of Nations.
The League of Nations being notable for the distinct lack of US participation - though, oddly, a large number of people seem to think the US was a member. We were not. It's like they think history started in 1990 or something. I guess, that does make it convenient if they want to try to blame others and not accept that their own forefather's are actually the people who caused these conditions. Accountability isn't really seen as a good thing, or so it would seem. People frown on suggesting that people be responsible for themselves. Hopefully, it's a passing fad but I kind of doubt that it is. I also suspect that there were people saying the same thing I'm saying some 1000 years ago.
I kind of pay attention to European politics. How do you figure that he'd be center by European standards? No, he's pretty left - even by European standards. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Though, to be honest, the way that much of Europe has gone about it has resulted in fewer liberties but that's a choice they're free to make.
As someone who will likely be *very* financially impacted by a Sanders' win for presidency, I have to tell you, he's the best chance you have. Your country is crumbling around you, you appear to not notice, and needs repairs. This is going to take additional funds. This is going to take allocating funds wisely. This is going to take someone other than the other candidates that you're being offered.
It's my country too but, should I need to, I've the means to leave or even not be impacted much - regardless. Tax avoidance is both legal and remarkably simple. I don't generally avoid my taxes because that would be a shitty thing to do. I do avoid some of them, the ones I don't personally prefer to pay, but I most generally pay them all. I typically reduce my tax burden to the maximum allowed by donating to charitable causes, in case you're curious. I also don't actually have to spend much money on myself and have learned the power of incorporation, accountants, and a business-oriented lawyer. If you're really curious, I don't mind the taxes so much as I mind how they spend them.
At any rate, you really are *likely* to be better of with Sanders than you are with any other candidate that's actually in the running at this time. You may not like his politics but, really, congress isn't going to let him get away with much. You'd also be hard pressed to find anything that you can feel comfortable saying about his politics on that Jumbotron that you mentioned, unless you're rather inhumane. What, are you going to stand up there and say, "Yes, I want poor people to suffer because I won't contribute an extra $5.00 total, per year, in taxes to help send them to school so that they can better themselves!" You're gonna feel proud to stand up and say that? Really?
Hell, chances are good that you don't even pay much in taxes. Some near 50% of you pay nothing in Federal taxes and very little in State taxes. (Everybody pays some taxes. Of course, the percentage paid is actually worse for the poor people.)
Seriously, I'll get taxed a few more percentage points. That actually adds up to a bit of money. I'm okay with that so long as they spend it wisely. Improving things and making things better in the long-run are what I'd call "wisely." I don't know about you but I kind of prefer the idea of a better future for more than just myself. Me? I'll be all set, thanks. I'll be likely to vote for Sanders because I want *your* kids to have a greater chance at fiscal improvements and because, truth be told, it takes a bit of capital for you to make the most of your freedoms and to appreciate your liberties. Poor people might be free but there's fuck all they can do to enjoy it.
What's that saying? The one about how the law, in its magnanimity, makes illegal for both poor and rich alike to sleep under the bridge?
For the sake of argument, is this really censorship? They're not being prohibited from speaking but are being prohibited from selling. Well, currently they're being threatened with it. I'm of the opinion that Sanders will squash this when it is brought to his attention. This is, currently, lawyers being lawyers.
As for the link that you provided, I've been following that with a bit of attention. That is really disappointing. Germany has some unfortunate regulations surrounding their freedom of speech. I don't think that's really all that similar to this instance, however. This just looks like lawyers being lawyers and will likely be quashed - if it hasn't been already.
Umm... What do you think Arizona's ruling has to do with anything? Arizona could rule that you still had the right to own slaves, it doesn't matter at all. It's a *Federal* statute that still exists - though it is not used. Arizona ruling on it has absolutely no bearing on it other than being a mild curiosity. Further up this sub-thread, I linked to a whole ton of material. It's one of my favorite stupid laws that remains on the books. Arizona can rule all they want, they can also try to catch a fart and paint it green. Their ruling on a Federal law means nothing - even within the State of Arizona. The courts are entirely separate critters and Arizona has no legal authority to overturn Federal legislation.
So, other than a mildly amusing factoid, it's meaningless. The reality is that it is a Federal offense. Of course, the reality is that the Feds don't give a shit but that doesn't make it any less a law. It was a stupid law then and it is a stupid law now but it's still on the books. I suspect that the SCOTUS would chuck it, if it went in front of them. At this point, that has not happened. So, it remains a law, regardless of Arizona's opinion on the subject.
Funny...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.
You might also be amused/informed/scared shitless by this:
https://trello.com/c/arrNVNIt/...
Oh, an amusing note on the Wikipedia page:
The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History).
This is worth reading:
https://law.resource.org/pub/u...
It's important to note, and this is from Wikipedia, that this is also true:
Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it.
Further reading and research can be done here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/gran... (Loading poorly.)
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~cal... (Loads of good information.)
In other words, you're actually wrong. Now, the odds of it being prosecuted are nil and the US Communist Party exists to this day. But, it is very, very much a FEDERAL CRIME to be a Communist or a member of the Communist Party in the United States. The Nazi party is fair game, however. You can be a Nazi, if you want, but being a communist is right out.
The Freedom of Speech is more accurately called the Right to Free Speech, for starters. Second, for better or worse, there have been limits imposed on this by the courts. It's important to realize that and acknowledge it if you want to have a meaningful discussion that revolves around reality.
At this point, it's reasonable to presume we'll never see this case reach a court room. The publicity for attempting to quash this will be too negative and so it will not be heard by a judge. The likelihood of this actually going anywhere is so low as to be considered impossible.
That said, the Right to Free Speech does not mean what you seem to think it means. Oh, it says what you think it says. However, reality comes knocking and it has been interpreted to mean something quite different than what it says. That generally happens with idealists and fools. There's this silly thing that I keep referencing, it's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's amazing how it is (seemingly) universally true.
To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.
At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.
Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. That includes the Lady Marines. The Lady Marine will have also had MCT. Fuck with a Lady Marine at your own peril.
What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.
I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.
He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.
Hmm... The only bridge building techniques that I know of, that are novel and being pioneered in Maine, are the ones with the composite arch system and the one they did in Pittsfield on 11 that they called a "bridge in a backpack." (I don't know much about the latter, something about using some sort of cloth that gets filled with concrete and is supposed to have about twice the lifespan before needing maintenance.)
Which bridge do you speak of and how did you hear about this? Or are you the guy who used to live in Maine but moved away, the one that I spoke with a while back and forgot their name? (If so, don't be mad, I forget everything.)
Link to him promising any of those things, please?
Nominally, yes. They then write that off as a business expense.
I'm not positive but I know that we used to buy things without paying sales tax on it at all - tax exempt purchases, you need a business ID and tax number (which can be your SSN, by the way - should you opt to incorporate) and they'll remove the taxes from your purchase price. Given that I still "own" several corporations, i could probably do this but I just try to remember to keep applicable receipts. I'm not that much of a stickler and I'm pretty lazy.
What I do not know is how this would apply to fuel as the taxes are added at the pump. It wouldn't surprise me if they had their own fuel depot and filled from there. In the case of my business, we simply kept applicable receipts and wrote it off at that point. We were not major fuel consumers or anything similar so we'd have not gone through any special means to get there.
Sure do. Here, have a look here:
https://www.google.com/search?...
Pick a link, any link. You do not need a guide in Cuba and I know of nothing other than military areas and government buildings/property that is restricted access. My first trip to Cuba was with a tour group. My second was on my own and I meandered about at will and never encountered anywhere that they didn't let me in - and that included a few government buildings.
I'm pretty sure that had I not stopped, I'd either be dead by now or on my way. Something about retiring just made it so that my whole response to it changed. I don't have a clean way to explain it. It's just muddy and I don't really have the words to describe it.
Or you have no idea what government is.
Yeah, I grab stuff and learn it very, very quickly. It's the retention that gets me. If I don't work, legitimately work, to retain it then it's gone. It must still be there, some of it, because sometimes there will be a trigger that reminds me of something and a whole rush of memories will come flooding back. Also, if I write something down then the physical act of writing it means that I remember it longer. If I wrote your number down, I'll remember it in 6 months. If I typed it, entered it into my phone, or just quickly memorized it then it's gone in 6 hours.
But I "learn" very, very quickly. I just don't retain it well. I don't retain it unless I make significant effort to do so.
What dictionary do you use where they're a scam? Do you even know what the word means or do you just apply it to things you do not like? Reddit is over there.