I completely agree. I mean sanders uses to say the millionaires and billionaires and changed that to just billionaires once he became a millionaire, but at least when questioned he stuck to his guns and said you can go out and make a million dollars too.

I forgot which home he was staying at when he gave those quotes. I've managed to lise track of how many he owns.

Slashdot has always had their fair share of midwits. You were likely one of them at some short point in time too. Except you likely know continued further up the inteligence chain and are now able to look around to recognize it.

Just a little over a decade ago, that wouldn't have been considered a right wing view. Progress of the progressive I guess.

Do you think their ultimate plan is to woo Fox News viewers and imitate Fox News with a Democrat spin?

Unfortunately, snuff films do exist. I have seen a couple and at least one either had special effects 30 years before Hollywood or it was completely real. I got it from an estate auction in either New York or Pennsylvania in the early 90s. It was on 8mm with no sound but a reflection in a mirror suggests something written in German.

It was turned over to the police. I'm not sure if that copy is still around or what happened to it.

I don't think the issue is men watching sports as much as it is women training their hardest and becoming the best of their peers just to have a man who was never in the top 100 or even top 500 in a sport put on a dress and dominate the women's field.

It's kind of like the difference between watching a NFL game versus arena football that has been rigged with WWF/WWE style stunts.

I seriously hope you do not believe the concept of free speech is only alive because if the US constitution. I mean sure, it is enshrined within the first amendment but it was no accident that it became that way.

Of course the first amendment only applies to government and agents of the government. And to that effect, only one particular government. But that doesn't mean every single discussion about speech being open or free is about the first amendment rights to free speech. You see, there is this concept called natural rights and people have them. It is the basis of the amendments and are inherent within us all. This free speech exists despite whi can take it away from you.

Just search for- school contractor cost overruns

You will find lots of examples. I doubt it would happen with these busses because generally there are provisions built into construction contracts that allow for increases that likely wouldn't apply to a service contract. However, most schools will not be able to get rid of all their fossil fuel fleets because of field trips and certain spoors events and so on.

This is awesome. When I first read your post, I was confused to how you could miss the entire part where this was two people using the emotionally and politically charged atmosphere at a work environment to screw over another employee for one of their benefit.

I don't know if you were intentional or just trying to counter the point, but not only did you explain how it would be viewed and therefore take down this employee but why we can justify our disdain for him or her in the process even though it would have been no act of his own. I can envision that his denials of the circumstances will be used as further proof of how bad he is and should be let go so I can have his job.

Of course the point was that things can happen completely outside a person's control and be completely false. But hey, because there are some bad actors at some point in time, his crucifixion is justified I guess. Either way, my point remains.

Or, I could just want your job so I have my friend Shiela from accounting brush up against you accidentally in a very public hallway then later spread rumors that you grabbed her breast during the encounter. This causes Pam who is a lesbian and self appointed warrior against all unwanted male sexual aggression to take notice and the rumor mill gets started.

Before long, you are looking for a new job and I'm looking for a new desk chair.

It's not always what you do. Sometimes it's more about what others percieved you as having done. And it can be completely outside of your control.

It's only a currency by fiat though. If there wasn't a government saying it is their currency, you would be asking wtf is a ruble.

The only intrinsic value of a ruble or euro, or US dollar for that matter is a law with the ability to enforce its use in certain areas.

But these arguments are meaningless. The US give will end up policing or regulating crypto if some get their way. So eventually it either will become a currency or it will be forbiden as a currency- for your protection of course. And if course to ensure proper taxes are collected- again for your protection of course.

Why don't you explain it then.

I already own two bridges. I don't really need another.

And yes, third parties do instill changes in major parties. What happens is they attract enough voters that the major parties either lose an election and need to change to attract them back or they know there is a pool of untapped voters they need to win and adjust to attract them. The smarter third parties directly challenge thr status quo in primary elections and influence from inside the major party.

And no, it is no different than a parliamentary system other than the changes and adjustments are done before an election. Third parties in a parliamentary system by necessity have to cooperate with other parties and give up some goals in order to have any power. Those positions given up will be largely the same whether in the US system or a parliamentary system.

All you are getting is a feel good vote. But it is no different than the current two party system. At best, the third party can hope to influence another party's politics. When the democrats cater to fring elements or the right caters to religious elements, it isn't because they are benevolent and ultruistic. It is because they need or want the vote thst comes with it. They will support enough cross politics in order to not lose other support.

I get what you I u are trying to say. It's just not different from what already exists outside of a feel good vote.

I'm sure there are lots of things they can agree on. Actually, I'm sure there are quite a lot of things they agree on but differ in approaches to address it.

Bur seriously. If the consequences of an election is what everyone agrees on, what makes the difference between two parties, 50 parties, or 1 party? The minority parties will always suffer the tyranny of the majority parties and at best have a chance to influence the politics of the majority. It's no different in reality.