Comment Re:FP (Score 1) 415
Clinton started it.
You mean with operation Carnivore. Yes, but he had a D after his name. That means something. What it means, I don't know. But it means something.
Clinton started it.
You mean with operation Carnivore. Yes, but he had a D after his name. That means something. What it means, I don't know. But it means something.
That was hard. I loved that dog.
I would have marked this as "insightful" versus funny.
For me:
Most of these fall into "communication with people"; one falls into "planning and plan execution."
Ah. The recently popular "everyone is doing it, so we are okay to do it too". The slow descent in the abyss of mediocrity. I am sure if we tally it up, the US is actually responsible for the highest amount of meddling and government overthrows on this planet in the last 70 years. Basically every president of this nation in that period has overthrown someone somewhere.
70 years? That brings us back to, what, 1943? Who was the first democratically elected government that the US over threw starting in 1943? Was it the National Socialists in Germany? Just curious.
Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that illusional? Pick for yourself the one that you like best:
Iran, 1953 [wikipedia.org]
Guatemala, 1954 [wikipedia.org]
Brazil, 1964 [wikipedia.org]
Chile, 1973 [wikipedia.org]
And that's just the ones that I can think of without digging too deeply.
I believe the comment was US has not attempted to overturn every single democratically-elected government and not the U.S. has attempted to overturn zero democratically-elected governments.
Some? Yes. All? No.
Nixon's spying on the Democratic Party Headquarters,
At least they started impeachment proceedings against Nixon which led to his removal from office (even if he quit before he was fired).
Stock does not only represent control of the company. It also represents ownership. So why shouldn't it be taxed? When a person is given stock, he/she should be taxed according to their market value (and I guess on a % of the companies book value in cases where the company is not publicly traded).
So when Steve got his shares, he should have paid income taxes on their value.
So, ultimately you're saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed. When Steve initially received his shares when it was just him and Woz, the company wasn't worth a huge amount. Same with Oracle and Ellison.
You must think that all poor people should be dressed in rags and have no dignity or luxuries whatsoever. I've been poor before and I know how it is, you insensitive prick
I love it when someone tries to take what I say out of context and imply I said something I didn't. Thank you for spreading your ignorance.
By Obama's definition, I've been poor too. People do not need cable TV. Hell, I haven't had cable or satellite TV for over 10 years. If someone insists that they need it then they sure as hell don't need me to spring for the grocery bill. Take that $800+ a year and put it towards groceries.
Tax Steve at 90% and he no longer controls Apple
Because taxes are levied on capital gains (i.e. only when selling his shares) and not on capital itself, then taxing Steve would have done about nothing. He carried many of them to his grave. Though I agree with you about what they represented to him: control. Stock ownership is only about profit when you sell your stake. Holding your stake is holding control.
Thank you for enforcing the point that the income tax does nothing about the rich.
The difference is that MoveOn has no pretenses in what it's about. What exactly is the tea party these days? All I hear from its mouthpieces right now is how gay marriage is a sign of the end times and moral decay causes deficits but we should totally spend trillions more dollars on war. And tax us less or something maybe.
I admit that I only have listened to actual Tea Party people three or four times -- but they were for smaller government and less taxes. They explicitly stated that they did not take any stand on social issues.
And please don't bring in the asinine fallacy that because I think Bush (and now Obama) are over spending that I somehow want to eliminate the Federal government completely or take us back to the dark ages.
Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy for individuals?
The right to privacy is the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton
It's interesting that the Affordable Health Care Act requires the government to know more and more about your health and health care decisions. Either these are contrary to Roe v. Wade or they are undermining the principles that RvW is founded upon.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
