or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

Complete fallacy. Companies don't cut prices because of lower labor costs or a tax break. They keep the prices the same and pocket the profit increase. The price you pay at retail is always going to be what they think the market will bear, not a reflection of what their tax level is. Plus, since corporate taxes are based on profits, it doesn't really make sense to raise prices based on tax.
 More like a bizarre "exploitation mentality", where it's always someone else's responsibility to avoid being exploited.
 It's a three-point-test, which means that's 66 pounds of pressure applied to a single point with no support underneath to resist it. Not only would a person sitting on a phone not isolate the force to a single point (it would be applied over a much larger area), but you would always have resistance underneath, i.e., whatever you're sitting on.
 That isn't really correct. Federal law says that you can't discriminate based race, color, country of origin, sex, religion, or disability. State laws can expand on that and add other categories of protection like sexual orientation etc., but they can't remove anything federally protected. Also, both state and federal RFPAs were not previously oriented towards for-profit business and their interaction with private citizens. It's almost always been geared towards...
Why is there a graphic for PRISM being used if the issue is bulk collection? PRISM was never a bulk collection program, and the tech companies were the ones who proved that it wasn't. The government would serve warrants for specific data, and the tech company lawyers would review the warrants and then make recommendations on what to release. Yahoo! actually tried to sue over the issue by claiming that the warrants served should be based on probable cause rather than...
 Correct. But you can't determine all of the specifics of restraint simply by reading the Constitution. You also have to read the laws that have been passed and upheld. Plus, many of the aspects of the Constitution that people like to quote today are from amendments, meaning that the original Constitution did not include them.
 If the central government had really been intended to be "weak", then how do you explain the central government buying and/or conquering such large amounts of territory following the original revolution? Or the fact that the Constitution has always said that federal law supersedes state law? Or the Civil War for that matter? 
 The oppressive government that they threw off was a feudal monarchy that based political power on wealth and land holdings. So the founding fathers were likely opposed to the new government catering to the rich at the expense of the average citizen, correct?
 Congress has passed bills that were signed into law and later ruled to be unconstitutional. Does that by itself prove that Congress as an institution is trying to oppress U.S. citizens? No. The same is true of an organization like the NSA. Yes, the FISA court ruled that they had likely violated Constitutional rights back in 2006 regarding the setup for a CIA/FBI database, but that doesn't prove anything regarding an intent to oppress U.S. citizens. In fact, since it was...
Even if you don't care for the Department of Homeland Security, they have such a wide range of scope that it's hard to see the overall department as existing as a conspiracy against U.S. citizens. IMO, the main problem is that it doesn't really seem to be an obvious improvement on the systems that existed before, at least not to the average citizen. The Patriot Act has always had a lot of problems, but it's also a publicly available document and a law that was passed by...
New Posts  All Forums: