You don't get to pick and choose only the positive results of profit motive as representing "real" capitalism.
Of course not. But that's not what I was doing, so the rest of your comment is moot.
Abuse of a system that was intended to be used differently in capitalist America is no different from abuse of a system that was intended to be used differently in formerly "communist" Russia, or China. The economic system has no bearing on it whatever: it's still just abuse of the system.
People have abused laws in all socioeconomic systems and they almost invariably do it for their own interests. You don't get to blame something that happens in ALL socioeconomic systems on "capitalism".
When you're on top. Let's see how you feel once the patent trolls come after you.
And since when, do you think, patent trolls represent capitalism?
Since I am a skeptic, you're claiming to be female once again.
Logic fail. No surprise.
My statement allowed for at least two logical possibilities. That very definitely was not the one I meant.
Goodbye.
But you haven't given a link to these "government-supplied statistics".
Because, as I clearly stated, I was too busy to bother with it.
You just said that Lott mentioned them.
He did. But he was not the originator of them.
Surely you can see how a skeptic might want an actual link rather than relying on the word of a man who's so dishonest he even lies about his own gender?
(A) You about as much a "skeptic" as I am actually female. Nothing dishonest about that.
(B) This is completely irrelevant and completely removed from the context of your original comment.
I repeat: learn how to argue. You fail at it. Until you do, stop harassing me.
Umm... Blatantly wrong. Cops never HAVE TO read you your rights. If the arrest was legal, they can question you all they want without Miranda. They can't use your answers at trial, that's it. No violation of your rights.
It was a bad example, but the principle is not wrong. According to Miranda v Arizona, the USE IN COURT of statements made during questioning without a Miranda warning is unconstitutional.
So yes, I was wrong in a sense. It would not be the police action that is unconstitutional. It would be the use in court of those statements that was unconstitutional.
That still means my basic point was correct: an act can be unconstitutional.
And it's made much easier by the new FCC regulations, which protect only "lawful" content.
Ideally this would make no difference, as there should no more be a way for an ISP to tell "lawful" from "unlawful" content, than there was for old phone companies to tell "lawful" from "unlawful" phone calls. They're carriers, nothing else. They should have no access to the content of your communications at all, without a warrant.
Quite true, of course. But that's not going to stop this train from moving down this track.
Yes, it will. It's stupid, and people know it's stupid. That's why we're having this conversation today. That's why this idea has gone nowhere since the early '90s, when it was first tried (Clipper Chip + Skipjack). It was stupid then, it is stupid now. Nothing has changed in that regard. Right down to the fact that they're still putting stupid people in charge.
Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.