I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with nutrition too. But in the US, there is quite a few people who are considered in poverty who are there by choice. I don't mean they choose to be in poverty but choices they make places and keeps them there.

I'm sorry but what was your point?

Its not like they did anything different than what was already happening. They just did it better. And in my neck of the woods, the vast majority of natives simply blended into society. They were not killed for the land.

Have you seen our tax code? When I took Federal Income Taxation in law school, I had to get a copy of the tax code, and it was about six inches thick. (I don't remember, or care, if or how much it was annotated.) That's a mighty long list of exceptions to consumption tax.

But consumption taxes will never take on, because the tax code is really about control. If I grant tax favors for certain preferred behaviors, I can exercise a phenomenal amount of control over what you do. If I'm a power-grubbing statist anywhere on the purple spectrum, that's much better than merely influencing what you buy.

I gather from news reports that they not only rammed the gate but security cars when less than lethal attempts to subdue them were being tried. But otherwise i agree with you with the exception of reasonable. Any other way needs to be reasonable enough to not cause extreme risk to someone's life. When that is present, lethal force is warranted whether it is obvious or not.

I think it's fine for private individuals to shout "Dont go to this business because they don't like gays". I DON'T think it's OK to use the force of government to force a private individual in to a business contract for any reason.

Two words:

Bus Boycott.

"[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear,"

Couldn't that be said by BOTH sides of this issue? Wouldn't it be injustice to force a private citizen to enter a private business contract/engagement with another private citizen against their will and against their beliefs?

I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on sexual orientation. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding. Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they don't want both figures on a cake wearing pants.

Actually the entire idea of these special entitlements that destroy individual rights TO DISCRIMINATE is a power grab by the insane government that is out of control.

Individual people discriminate every day. As a potential employee you can choose to work for a one legged Brazilian tranny and there is nothing any of the other potential employers can do to stop this obvious bigotry and discrimination by you against their businesses, NOR should there be anything they could do to force you to work for them. That's EXACTLY the same thing.

PRECISELY the same thing, since you working for a company is exactly like a company doing work for other people. When you buy a product you are buying work done by a company for you. A company is people standing behind it (corporations are in fact people, not as in 'Google is a living person', it is not. It is as in Google is owned by people, that's the people corporations are). A person that owns/runs a company has his or her right to discriminate and the Constitution of the USA is there to protect that right.

A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.

A government telling somebody that just because they are employing somebody they now lost a right is abuse and oppression and a power grab and unconstitutional and illegal and immoral.

Should people discriminate against each other based on sex, gender, age, race, colour? We know that some will and some do. If a business does so, it will face consequences whatever they are in the market. As to a belief that just because a business exists somewhere you automatically get an entitlement to their service - that is hubris and destruction of the people running that business as individuals and it cannot stand.

Of-course you are absolutely 100% correct, which was my first comment on this topic before the one you replied to. But my first comment appears to be extremely unpopular here.

Oh, I have no doubt they considered ending it. Probably in a "how much power would we lose if" type scenario but consideration likely was there at some point.

I doubt that. She seems like less of a bitch than Hillary, is more media and business friendly in ways Hillary simply tries to put on a show about, and not too many people outside the tech world actually hate her.

Outside of her name sounding foreign, I would think she has just as much chance as any other woman running. I bet she would be picked as a vice president candidate too- if the primaries don't get too ugly.

I don't know why it should be easier to get a conviction, the laws were either broken and there is proof of it or there isn't. I would hate to be in a court system that decides you were warned 3 times by means outside the court so you are more likely guilty on the same evidence.

Now I can see where the modus operandi is used to determine Mes Rea but I'm not sure the type of copyright laws being addressed need that level of detail. Displaying the willingness to subvert a blocking mechanism would show intent to violate the copyright.

In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.

Hmm.. systemd in ruby on rails.. Interesting concept but I don't think to many people will like it. Instead, they should just try the windows really good version. there is an online demo here but it relies on flash.

http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/