Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:This is great! (Score 3) 353

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28epithet%29
Use of the term has been a point of contention within the Republican Party. In 1984, when a delegate of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change a platform amendment to read the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, New York Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be "an insult to our Democratic friends" and the committee dropped the proposal.[2] In 1996, the wording throughout the Republican party platform was changed from "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party": Republican leaders "explained they wanted to make the subtle point that the Democratic Party had become elitist".[19] A proposal to use the term again in the August 2008 Republican Platform for similar reasons was voted down with leaders choosing to use "Democratic Party". "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing."

Yeah, Jack Kemp and Haley Barbour, flaming libruls both. Got it. Nice try though.

Comment Re:This is great! (Score 1, Informative) 353

"Democrat Party" is a slur, originally developed by Jesse Helms and later picked up and expanded upon by Karl Rove, intended to take away from Democrats - that is, members of the Democratic Party, the right to choose their own name.

As Theon can tell you having an entity that is attempting to obtain dominance over you impose a name not of your choosing is not a good thing. Members of the Democratic Party have been pretty vigilant about this since George W. Bush started doing it regularly. Hard right wing radicals don't like to be called out on their attempts though for some weird reason.

sPh

Comment Re:Just in tech? (Score 1) 349

= = = Women make less than men over their careers because they have babies, = = =

Last time I checked, the vast majority of people in the US who have babies are married. It takes two to have a baby, and care of the child is both parents' responsibility. So you're basically saying that men in the tech industry shirk their childrearing responsibilities too.

Comment Re:Just in tech? (Score 1) 349

= = = Then men and women hit their 50s. Kids are out of the house and on their own. Men starting taking months at a time off for prostate cancer and heart surgery, while women are hitting their stride at work. And yet oddly the salaries and titles of the 50-something men are never reduced to match their lower productivity. What a meritocracy! = = =

Ouch.

Comment Re:Just in tech? (Score 0) 349

Then men and women hit their 50s. Kids are out of the house and on their own. Men starting taking months at a time off for prostate cancer and heart surgery, while women are hitting their stride at work. And yet oddly the salaries and titles of the 50-something men are never reduced to match their lower productivity. What a meritocracy!

sPh

Comment Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 1) 734

AFAIK IANAL dual citizenships aren't legal(or maybe not legally recognized would be more correct?) in the US to begin with.

The US position on dual citizenships is generally to ignore them. So as far as the US government was concerned these kids would be solely American. They wouldn't get in trouble or anything.

Comment Re:Similar Situation...and it's Worse than You Thi (Score 1) 734

while our son was born in Canada and I signed to forms to allow him to get a US passport. In hindsight I wish I had never done this.

If you were married at the time of your son's birth, then he was a US citizen regardless of what forms you did or did not fill out. There was nothing you could do about it. So don't feel too badly.

Comment Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 1) 734

US consular assistance is pretty worthless. They do the bare minimum and charge up the ass for everything else.

As a dual US-EU citizen, I never travel on my US passport or deal with the US overseas when I can help it, because it's a waste of time.

Also, as a EU citizen, I have the benefit of recourse to consular services from any other EU nation if mine isn't available.

The US isn't the only country that evacuates its citizens, but as far as I know it's the only one that will send you a bill afterwards. I'd much rather be evacuated by the French, for example, who have a far stronger record in overseas citizen protection.

Comment Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 1) 734

In fact, the USA is the only significant country that taxes based on citizenship rather than residence.

Pretty much no other country taxes its citizens when they are living outside that country in the long term. Only the USA does.

For this reason American dual citizens and expats are at a serious disadvantage in the international job and investment market.

Comment Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 1) 734

You can rant all you like, but the US can easily seize your assets by putting pressure on the foreign bank where you have them stored.

Any bank of any size will have international operations in the US which are much more valuable to them than you are.

US government threatens bank, bank caves. Every time.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...