You mean, like Hillary's email? Like that?
You mean, like Hillary's email? Like that?
Actually, it was on purpose. The fact that you can't figure it out kinda proves my point.
Technically, the US is a Democratic Republic. Tyranny of the majority (Democracy) is still tyranny.
Citizen's United isn't the problem. Citizen's united is the same thing as Unions and Pacs contributing to elections. They are all incorporated. So, unless you're suggesting that only private citizens can have free political speech, then you're just upset that the balance was shifted from one group to another.
My suggestion is this. Any incorporated group, (PAC, Charity, Corporations, Unions etc) can spend whatever they want on political speech, but they cannot donate to any other group, or to candidate or cause directly. That way, if the NRA wants to promote a Senate candidate, they can buy their own time, and pay for their own promotional bits. Same for unions. That way, we can see exactly who is getting what from who.
I think we just want to remove the shell game that hides all the money flowing into campaigns.
Trade Federation: "is it legal"
Palpatine: "I will make it legal"
Government is above the law, because it makes the law. We don't elect people to write laws and execute them, we elect people to monitor the legislative and executive actions of the shadow state.
Far too many people are enjoying the fruits of this illicit governance, and therefore don't care how bad our liberties are being raped.
The whole proposal is built on poor estimates and pipe dreams with little or no supporting evidence.
A bar owner can double the price of their beer and make double the money--if they're currently charging a penny for a pint.
The problem with taxes, is that every time we try to lower them, liberals go ape shit crazy, as if you're tossing Grandma off a cliff, killing kittens and eating babies. Democrats only know one thing, "Increase taxes!!"
See California, which is raising taxes once again, to pay for things previous taxes were raised for, but redirected by Democrats into their pet projects and social experiment programs. In this case, it is "Gas" taxes to pay for "Roads" that previous taxes were supposed to pay for. Meanwhile, they will be surprised when tax revenue from Gasoline drops as more people figure out that a Tesla is less expensive now and actually pays for itself, depriving the state of much needed Gas Taxes.
Tax what you want to rid, and it goes away. Why are we paying taxes on income again?
Bush/Obama tax cuts were fully repealed, it would restore $4T in tax revenues for a decade that could fix the hole in the budget.
I've never met a Democrat that didn't like taxes, increasing taxes, or new and increasing taxes, Nope, not one. Because in the end, they continue to vote Democrat, and the democrats keep taxing and spending like a drunk pirate. Pirate, because sailors actually stop spending when they run out of money.
All one needs to do, is look at California, which keeps raising taxes on REGULAR people.
Taxes are regressive. All of them.
With a mallet made of depleted uranium.
Secured by Hillary Clinton and massive donations to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, and speaking fees to the former Rapist in Cheat Bill.
Thanks for proving the point of the GP. You're so stupid you can't even figure out that enough people aren't falling for that name calling crap anymore, especially when the Feminist Enabler to the former Rapist in Chief called everyone that disagreed with her candidacy "Basket of deplorables"
You know who is racist? All those people excusing everyone's inablities to function in society on their skin color (Democrats)
"Can't you pull up your pants?"
Emoluments clause [wikipedia.org] that restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress
Funny, how that didn't apply to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, her husband Bill "Blew Dress" Clinton who took Millions of dollars from Russia, while securing a deal to sell a larger percentage of Uranium to Putin.
If the Democrats didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any.
It was a stupid idea, and they said they fixed it. I don't own one, so I am not 100% sure.
With an attitude like that, it is surprising breaches don't happen more often in the private sector.
There are a couple issues I have with this statement, not because of anything you said, but what is left unsaid. First
Second issue is even more frightening, the number of breaches still won't outweigh the actual costs of those breaches. The prevention of a possibility cost more than the probability * cost of a breach, which makes securing a breach unlikely. In the eventuality of a breach the "Accenture" route is better choice, because you can probably pawn it off on insurance.
The ONLY way to make it cost effective, is lower the cost of securing your stuff, or making breaches more costly artificially (fines, fixes, etc). The problem with the latter is all of that goes away with a Bankruptcy. And even then, the market will eventually sort it all out, include the costs in evaluations and keep working.
We're supposed to care when one person is "offended" or "uncomfortable" on one hand, but we're a bigot if we are supposed to care when another person (usually plural) is "offended" and "uncomfortable".
And yes, there have been MORE cases of men (real, purvy men) "using" the lady's room since the decision has happened, because you can't really tell the difference between "Purvy man" looking for crotch and tits, and a "Trans / drag queen" looking at clothes and shoes. And if you have a magic way of reading which one is which, then you should sell it on QVC and make a few million bucks doing so. AND heaven forbid you mistake a %.03 population for someone that is 50% (more or less).
Pretending the problems don't exist are liberal's favorite excuse. My suggestion, is that we just make one "bathroom" for everyone, and fuck people's feelings all together.
Free speech is free. Liable, slander, and such are Civil, not Criminal law. Lying under oath is a criminal violation of that oath, one you took freely of your own will ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"). You are free to lie, outside of courts and even inside courts while not under oath you have taken.
So, the Free Speech bits of the First Amendment is really really broad. Hell, I've even argued against people making the "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" bit, by saying you can yell "fire" in such a scenario. However, you are responsible if there is 1) no fire, and 2) you cause harm doing so. An actor on the stage can yell "fire" all day long (Ready, Aim FIRE!!!!). Context is everything.
Rights come with responsibilities. The modern left doesn't want any responsibilities, except that which they can impose on others, such as "not offending" people. Not my responsibility to not offend, it is your responsibility to stop being offended over everything.
The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader