or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

 That is enshrined in the Constitution (see below). That was also part of the debate over that Constitution. It's how freedom is protected. States that get too unfree lose citizens and revenues as the result of bad policies, giving a feedback mechanism. If you eliminate that feedback mechanism, there is nothing preventing bad policies from being created and getting worse. 
 Um… Take a good look at the very first topic addressed in the First Amendment.  Establishment means the creation or selection of an official state religion. Exercise means putting something into practice. In other words, the government cannot have an official religion, nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs. Therefore, laws are required to be written to make sure they do not interfere with religious beliefs and practices. That is a...
Wow. Look at all the people who think it's fine to completely destroy someone's life simply for disagreeing with them, even when that disagreement is based on something which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.   So much for "tolerance".
Does it finally support CalDAV and CardDAV so that it can sync calendars and contacts with iOS devices?
 So instead of going back and dealing with the specific arguments, you just keep the ad hominem fallacy going. Here's a hint: demonizing the "other side" is not a valid argument.
They ADMITTED it! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/ As for the arguments, go back and read for comprehension.
Who pays for the cables, equipment, and manpower to install and maintain them necessary to carry that 50GB? Do they simply appear out of thin air? Do you think you paid the entire cost for that with your monthly bill? Do you suppose the cost to carry 50 petabytes is linear? Do you think video data should be transmitted at exactly the same speed as file downloads when both are running simultaneously? (Look up QoS—quality of service—in networking.) Do you contend there...
"I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph)." This statement disallows principled objections leaving only "incapable of thinking," and "financial relationships" = paid shill. You absolutely said that. Now own it.
A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.
And yet, not a single person has responded to my real arguments. Other real arguments made by others here have been equally ignored or gainsaid. (For example, the government's proven use of the IRS to suppress political enemies, NSA spying, etc.) Reverting to name calling indicates that there is no counter-argument.
New Posts  All Forums: