For anyone questioning the legality of attacking Venezuela and abducting their leader:
Remember we're talking about a highly corrupt leader, a known criminal who used his high office to make billions for himself, and has manipulated elections to stay in power. He has used his military against his own citizens, has protected his corrupt friends and punished his political enemies.
And the President of Venezuela did some bad things too.
To repeat: That sentence was the only one that even mentioned sales taxes; the rest of the study apparently ignored them.
Property taxes, which are often also regressive, are also barely mentioned.
A search for "sales tax" in the uchicago pdf has one hit, with this phrase:
Similarly, they [authors of a study] allocate sales taxes to consumers, notwithstanding remittance by retailers.
Basically, a study that's supposed to be about tax progressivity completely ignores one of the most regressive taxes. And when they do discuss it, it's so they can pretend that sales taxes are not paid by consumers.
That's just stupid, at muitiple leves.
The timing of the second trial for defamation and battery was because New York extended the statute of limitations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The timing of the first trial for defamation was because she wrote a book detailing sexual assaults by Trump, and then Trump repeatedly accused her of lying in order to sell books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't forget that one of the reasons we know that Trump repeatedly assaulted women is because he bragged about it.
If it was supposed to be a demonstration, why did she have the security cameras turned off?
From here:
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Rep. Joe Neguse, a Democrat whose district includes
Boulder, have suggested that the proposed NCAR closure amounts to political brinkmanship by
the White House in response to Colorado's refusal to release Tina Peters. Peters, a former
Mesa County clerk, is serving a nine-year prison sentence for illegally accessing voting
machines after the 2020 election. A Republican, Peters was recently pardoned by Trump,
largely symbolic action since she has neither been charged nor convicted in federal court.
Then we'll add Nicola Walker, James Norton, Suranne Jones, Kate Phillips, Charlotte Ritchie, and Mark Rylance.
These are names I knew off the top of my head that were not in the list above. They are all well-known from UK productions, and with the exception of Mark Rylance I'm not immediately aware of anything they've been in that was not from the UK.
From: "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act"
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/...
If you said "Section 230 means these companies can never be sued!"
I regret to inform you that you are wrong. Internet companies are sued all the time. Section 230 merely protects them from a narrow set of frivolous lawsuits, in which the websites are sued either for the content created by others (in which case the actual content creators remain liable) or in cases where they're being sued for the moderation choices they make, which are mostly protected by the 1st Amendment anyway (but Section 230 helps get those frivolous lawsuits kicked out faster). The websites can and do still face lawsuits for many, many other reasons.
If you said "Section 230 is a get out of jail card for websites!"
You're wrong. Again, websites are still 100% liable for any content that they themselves create. Separately, Section 230 explicitly exempts federal criminal law - meaning that stories that blame things like sex trafficking and opioid sales on 230 are very much missing the point as well. The Justice Department is not barred by Section 230. It says so quite clearly:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of
So many of the complaints about criminal activity are not about Section 230, but about a lack of enforcement.
Repeal it, and this problem goes away.
And so does Slashdot.
"A common carrier is a very specific thing that has nothing to do with websites and less than nothing to do with Section 230."
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/...
From here:
"Section 230 was a direct response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where a judge ruled that Prodigy's active moderation
Deleting accounts because of what they posted would be considered 'active moderation'.
Repealing Section 230 would result in thousands (millions?) of small platforms shutting down.
Including Slashdot.
"Before Advocating To Repeal Section 230, It Helps To First Understand How It Works"
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/...
"Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act"
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/...
80% of the US population lives in urban areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some shows from googling 'PBS programs rural America':
https://www.pbs.org/show/ameri...
https://www.pbs.org/show/life-...
https://video.pbs12.org/show/p...
https://www.pbs.org/show/roads...
There are more.
The impact of people on the environment in fucking huge. Why would you want Nature documentaries to lie to you about that? Personally I think that most Nature programs don't spend as much time as they could talking about encroachment and habitat loss, because people don't want to hear depressing news in those programs. But it's an important part of the story, not something that is "snuck in."
And I'm guessing you meant 'NPR' when you wrote 'PBS Radio'.
The previous font change was made because it was "considered more accessible for people with issues ranging from dyslexia to low vision."
Describing that as "we can't read" is, well, pathetic and childish on your part.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
