I use 2 accounts, (should be obvious since I state it in the signature and in many comments I explicitly add it to the top of the comment) for the last few years or so, given the fact that my first account constantly gets bombarded with downmods that prevent me from posting. The only reason to be against my second account is if you personally want to prevent me from posting comments.

Now, does it matter to you specifically what account I use? There are hundreds of people here with many accounts and they keep it secret. I want to link all of my comments together, so I very specifically state the reason for my backup account.

Secondly, when you say

you state your bias against information in a thread, where you stated this:

.

You are the one who holds religious believes in this case, your religious believes deny empirical data, which shows that Austrian school of economics allows people to make very precise predictions, not only predicting economic phenomena but showing how they come to those conclusions step by step.

Keynesian ideas are religious propaganda that is currently used by the powers that be to control population.

Wrong on both points, I am not an American and on Keynesianism, where every failure of the Keynesian ideology is countered by the argument that their approached wasn't used in large enough quantity.

By the way, same with the youtube videos that I am linking to, which include 10 minutes of news program clip compilation of an Austrian being laughed at repeatedly for predicting the housing bubble collapse and the economic collapse much before most people saw it and his mortgage banker meeting video from 2006 (the same one he gave in 2005) explaining why exactly (point by point) the housing bubble was inflated and how it will collapse.

Cheers to you.

Well, Canada has shown time and again that Constitution doesn't matter at all anyway.

Would you agree that a human right cannot be a right if it trumps some other human right? As in: there is no way that something can be called a human right if in order to achieve that goal, another human's right must be violated?

Well, Canadian courts violate human rights on daily basis as they pretend they uphold human rights. How is that possible? It's called Canadian Human Rights Act of 1985 and based on this so called "Human Right Commissions" have been established, for example Ontario Human Right Commission.

With names like that, you would expect these high powered authorities to actually care about what it is they are supposedly presiding over, however the reality is the opposite. The so called "human right" courts in Canada violate actual human rights of minorities on daily basis in order to provide vast majority with many many entitlements at the expense of the minority.

I am of-course speaking of the employers being completely violated in Canada in order to ensure that those in power stay in power by supporting this absolute atrocity of a human right violation. The employees are far and many, the employers are few, and so it pays to violate human rights of employers in order to provide undue entitlements to employees and gain political power.

Based on the false premise and the so called 'common law' no employee in Canada has been forced to pay a retribution to an employer if the employee decides to leave at a moment's notice, however all employers are forced to pay retribution to employees if they want to fire them. This is not the human right violation yet, however once you realize that employers are not allowed to so called 'discriminate' based on age, race, religion, language an actually experience but employees discriminate on daily basis and that courts find that employers are liable but not one court will find an employee liable, you will see the problem.

Of-course there are much greater problems than that, but basically the so called 'human rights' courts in Canada are some of the most egregious examples of human right violators in that country.

Does this violate the copyright of the sites the user is visiting? By modifying the content stream, they're creating a derivative work without authorization.

On the other hand, user-controlled plugins and ad blockers do that all the time, so I wouldn't be too quick to make that argument in court.

Ha ha, "5 insightful"? Actually the real religion is Keynesianism, regardless of how many pieces of data they get to the contrary of their believes, the normal response it: do the same thing BIGGER next time. Of-course they do and they do it bigger every time and the only thing that happens from it is that the misallocations and bubbles are getting bigger.

Actual Austrian economics has plenty of data and history of accurate predictions.

So 1) Artificial scarcity of carbon based fuel
2) Redistribution of wealth
3) Let the market deal with the extra government regulations

Yes extremely disturbing that people can only be in one of three political categories... And disturbing that it looks so smooth and regular that either they had a ridiculously large sample size or they made up the data.

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

Once again, SCOTUS does not change the facts. Whether legislation is Constitutional or not, SCOTUS can pass their opinion, however their opinion does not actually change whether the law is Constitutional or not.

A Constitutional law is Constitutional and unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless what SCOTUS finds. Even before a law is found unconstitutional by SCOTUS it is already unconstitutional. Even after SCOTUS finds an unconstitutional law Constitutional, it does not change the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

That's not "another poster", that's my primary account. As I explain in that comment, 16th amendment does not turn illegal income taxes into legal ones, it does many things, but not that. Plenty of what I wanted to say on that topic is covered in that comment, which is why I refer to it rather than copying and pasting, you can click links, right? If you do not care to read what I wrote back then, then why would I want to rewrite it now?

Hate to break it to you, but that's not 14th Amendment.

That is 16th amendment and it DOES NOT make income taxes Constitutional. I show that 16th Amendment does not give Federal government any authority to tax income. You can stop 'hating and breaking', it's not doing much of anything.

Oh, I do know for a fact, much better than everybody here, that the Supreme Court's opinions do not in fact change Constitutionality of legislation. They pass opinions however their opinions do not change the illegality of laws and do not make them legal.

Also a law doesn't need to be heard by the SCOTUS to be understood as an unconstitutional one. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional before SCOTUS hears and and after, regardless of what SCOTUS finds.

Nobody should be paying any income related taxes, they are morally repugnant because they assume that all individuals are owned by the collective, as if people are slaves rather than free individuas and unconstitutional.

- this is not the question, and really, the answer is in TFA:

There you go, that's why they are in Nevada.

By the way, this is again compared to Burger King for all the wrong reasons:

Burger King is a BRAZILIAN COMPANY, not American. Hasn't been American since about 1989. 70% of its stock is held by a Brazilian conglomerate. Fucking Americans are idiots, crying about a Brazilian company merging with a Canadian one, but what else is new?

However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.

Of-course the reality is that so are these government monopolies on education and health insurance and care. There should be no government at all in any of it, education and health insurance and care are just as much subject to free market rules as any other products, including food and shelter and clothing and energy and none of is any of government's business and the fact that government is in all of these things is the reason that these socialist / fascist economies are dying and good, the sooner the better. The sooner these socialist/fascist states disappear the sooner people can rebuild their individual freedoms and real economies.