This is correct. However, the investment involved risk, and is good/necessary for the economy to function. This is why investments get a lower tax-rate, to encourage investment, which encourages business which encourages hiring which drives the economy. It's harder to convince someone to take on investment risk if the government limits the up-side. Look at it this way, you invest 200K and you could either lose it all, break even or make a return on the investment - currently if you get a return on the investment, you only get 85% of it and the government takes 15% - but you took all of the risk (there is no risk in working a regular job (W-2 income), you are guaranteed to make your wage). If the government took 30-39% of the return, and still assumed none of the risk, where is the incentive to invest? It's really penny-wise and pound-foolish to consider taxing investment returns like regular income.

Yeah, I'm clueless in the sense that I have no clue what point you are trying to make. This happens to reflect more on you than it does on me. My arguments are at least logical and make sense. Yours seem to be alluding to knowing things in absolute terms which is ridiculous considering the context of the original conversation. Based on your logic, we know nothing because it cannot be proven that we are not just a brain in jar with our sensory inputs being manipulated and fed to us, matrix-style. Sure, that is a useful philosophical concept/argument but it is completely useless in all other facets of life and understanding.

Argued that way, I can accept that as a reasonable conclusion. However, I realize that Anonymous could include that very same TLA, although it is unlikely, or someone who is even more of a pathological liar. While the odds may be in your favor (it's arguable) it is not a slam-dunk.

Yes, tied to my single UID (zzsmirkzz). That is a record of a single person's actions/speech which can be used to predict that single person's future actions/speech.

However, when dealing with Anonymous their actions/speech can not be tied to any single person, organization or group. Due to the fact that anyone can use the identity (or lack thereof) at any time and for any reason, past actions/speech tied to the identity (Anonymous) cannot be reliably (or logically) used to predict future actions/speech of the identity. So the statement "Anon has a better record of telling the truth" has no real meaning because Anonymous can encompass everyone, no one, and all of the points in-between (depending on the context). The person who used the identity yesterday and happened to be truthful tells you nothing about truthfulness of the person who is using the identity today.

A nameless, faceless, identity that anyone can assume at any time, by definition, does not have a record .

As a single juror okay this might not instill any doubt for you but you can't speak for the other 11.

I said at the beginning of my statement that "if there is just one, reasonably believable, alternate version..." so I already covered that the doubt is "Reasonable". A version of events can be unlikely and still be reasonably supported by the evidence the two are not mutually exclusive.

The defense does not have to prove anything. They only need to instill reasonable doubt. The cell phone location by itself does instill doubt - I'll concede that the amount of doubt depends on the other evidence. But if there is just one, reasonably believable, alternate version of events that does not incriminate the defendant, and is not disproved by the evidence, no matter how unlikely, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty.

No, they are not. They are within their right to pass laws criminalizing such attempts at causing harm.. The freedom of the person to speak their mind is absolute but if they do so with intent to cause harm, they can be found liable for the harm they caused, not the words they spoke.

It is not illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. It is illegal to start a panic by falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

No, it is not. The current testing/matching methods put the chance of a duplicate at (I believe) 1 in 1000 - that's a whole lot of duplicates if you have a country or state-wide database. DNA is amazing tool in identifying a single person out of a small amount of suspects with the means and motive to commit the crime, say 1 out of 10 or 20. The probability of finding a duplicate in that small sample-pool is very small. This is why any attempt at building a comprehensive DNA database should be fought vigorously.

But the phone indicating that the person was at his house does raise a "reasonable doubt" unless there is other evidence that proves he was somewhere else - not that his DNA was there but him. If they give a provide a reasonable explanation for how the DNA go there and have proof that his phone was somewhere else it all adds to a reasonable doubt.

Based on what he said Jury Nullification cannot be trumped by a Rule 50 motion.

A not-guilty verdict cannot be contested this way as the jury is saying there is not enough evidence to find guilt. Rule 50 sounds like it is used when a jury finds a defendant guilty without enough evidence to support it.

However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?

I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.

We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.

My thoughts are that since it is pre-installed, was advertised as a feature of the phone purchased and the cellular service contract that blocking it constitutes false advertising, bait-and-switch and the like. Cue the lawsuits!

Because it is fundamental to the free exercise of religion....Duh!