or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

It would be nice if the DOJ was as interested in the shenanigans in the banking/financial world as they are in ebook prices and streaming music.
 They already don't keep the money in Europe. It's sitting in banks in NYC. 
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?
New Posts  All Forums: