Yes, I know we've heard this argument before, but consider this: what are we producing? Just the larger stuff? What about the smaller stuff? Go to any local store (like Wal-Mart) and see how many things are made in the U.S.A. If all we are producing are the larger things, our expertise is waning. It is hard for small businesses to start production and grow when you need tens or hundreds or millions of dollars to start production. China has the ability to start small. We are losing it. When the big businesses die in the U.S., there will be no small businesses to replace them. Where do you think the large businesses will come from?

That is what we mean when we say the U.S. is not manufacturing anything. Numbers can lie.

As mentioned, if he immediately plead the 5th he would have been labelled as suspicious and guilty by public view. Let's assume he is innocent, and of course it is you being questioned by the police. (which is the foundation for our justice system)

Cop says "Hey, can we chat?". You being innocent have nothing to hide. "Sure, what's up? Selling fundraiser stuff?" Cop says "Nah, just making the rounds. Chief says we need to interact with the community more. I think he's right, even though he can be a prick at times. You know how bosses are." and nudges you with his elbow to let you know he's joking. You return "Yeah, my boss and every other boss I ever had gets on my nerves sometimes. So what kind of community outreach do you have planned?". Cop returns "Well, we were wondering who had interest in guns and maybe putting on some gun safety classes and shooting range classes for the public.". You "Really? I have a couple shotguns handed down to me when my gramps passed away. Never used them, but it may be fun to try.". Cop "Really, we just had a murder with a shotgun. What kind of shells do you own?" You.. "um, can I get a lawyer?"

Given the above scenario, would it be fair for the cops to haul you in front of a jury and begin telling them how as soon as he asked about ammo you asked for an attorney and refused to answer his question? Absolutely not.

I'm not saying that other evidence did not end up making the difference in conviction. What I'm saying is that the tactic described above should not happen. You became uncomfortable with the officers questions, and decided it best to stop talking. That fact should not be admissible to a jury, as it requires speculation on "why" you plead the 5th and started having concerns with your rights. Also, don't compare this to other shitty things done to get convictions. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. But we as a people must start standing up when we see obvious wrongs.

To your last paragraph, I agree with what you summarized. That is now how we are supposed to work though. People tend to see no issues with a double set of laws (one for them and one for us) until it's them on the receiving end of the unfavorable rules. That double standard is what we have to start trying to change. Complacency and apathy have never fixed anything.

Maybe not. It's amazing to me that there are still people who blame the poor for their poverty by saying they made bad choices. To be fair, I'm sure some of them did. But to be blind to the massive advantage wealth gives a person, and conversely the disadvantage of poverty, takes a special kind of obtuseness.

Yes, this is news? See here. The poverty rate has been going up for a bit now. And poverty is defined as $23,000 for a family of four. So yeah, there are a lot of Americans struggling to afford Cheerios.

Only pointing out two items since you keep circling back to the same exact item that I showed was wrong.

There are numerous public records showing this exact data. There is not a master registry released showing it all in one place. This is why I pointed out Warren Buffet who released all of his data showing you that he really only paid 9% tax, compared to his secretary that pays over 30%.

Absolutely false. Income tax was used as a major leveling factor for the majority of our legal income tax world. The reasoning is based on Socrates's allegory of the artisan.

I know, it makes no sense to look at facts that debunk your delusion so be happy living in it.

So either way in your opinion, the person was wrong. Not talking to the police to begin with, he would have been presumed suspicious. Talking to the police, but not answering a question that is obviously a possible incrimination he is guilty.

That is absolutely not how justice is supposed to work. Justice is best defined by Socrates in "The Republic" by Plato. It's easy for us to look at justice through biased eyes, because it's not us under scrutiny. The Government however shows no bias if you become a target of the same treatment your biases allow happen to others. Something to think about, but I'm not confident that you will.

I'm in the same boat. I don't download a lot, so 10 Mb works fine for me. It's plenty for streaming Netflix, which is my most bandwidth intensive activity. But my provider recently upped the lowest tier to 25 Mb. So now I'm forced to pay more for service I don't really want, and which rarely runs at the advertised speed anyway.

Yes, that is unfortunately what the court ruled. From TFA: "Although 'no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege' ... a witness does not do so by simply standing mute," Alito added.

That still seems like bullshit to me. The right is to remain silent. Saying, "I invoke my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination" is not remaining silent. It is manifestly speaking.

Oh, and you are wrong again about what got them in trouble. It was failing to answer questions related to ammo casings found at the scene. So you either ignored the fact, or just argued against yourself with "He got into trouble when he started answering questions, not when he failed to answer this one.".

1 word rebuttal? Wholly fuck go back and read the paragraph I gave to show why jackass. Or don't, and look like a bigger jackass.,/p>

I believe we said the same thing, however I try to leave references to "God" out of /. discussions lest I immediately be marked a troll. The definition of "right" is very clear in our Constitution. Obviously you read it, but the person I responded to did not, or simply does not care (perhaps hoping the masters give him a 2nd helping of rice).

You can not compare a person making an agreement to a Government refusing basic human rights. In one case, the person voluntarily gives up something in order to benefit. In the other, it is a criminal act (defined by the Constitution).

Your logic is broken a 2nd time when you claim that it's someone's view that the 4th and 5th amendments are inalienable. It's not simply someone's opinion, it is the Law that the USA is founded upon. Just in case you are a little slow, here is a simple logic lesson. Law = Rule and Law != Whim

The purpose of Miranda rights is to ensure that both parties are aware of their basic human rights as given them by law.

Wrong. Of the criminal used Remmington shells, and you have the same shells: you are now a liar and defending yourself. If you gave shells to a neighbor, had hunting stolen, etc.. You could be labelled a liar or guilty by weak circumstances. There are countless scenarios in which you would not want to answer a question on these lines. Do not forget that a fundamental component of our justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Eric.. I guess you already forgot that,

WHAT? You do realize that the Bill of Rights are those rights granted to all Peoples as defined by the Constitution. Please go read the dictionary and make note of what "right" means when applied as a "noun" dealing with morals. Maybe you were just trying to play the role of devil's advocate.

I did not say I could not imagine it, I said that it is not feasible on scale. Posible != Plausible