If you're a civilian, you're guilty, even if provably innocent. If you're a cop, you're innocent, even if the video shows the cop's victim was unarmed and not resisting.
Can't be bothered to read the article, but posting what I think about what it says anyway. That comment has nothing to do with this story. The cop realized his/her mistake, and went away happy. Yet you then come along and spit out that. What for?
Why would anyone want to do this (what you did) as an AC? What's it really get you?
A corporation is not just "a group of persons". It is something more. It is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from the people who own it.
FTFY. It's a money making machine designed to distance the shareholders (its owners) from the legal and tax obligations of the business (the money making machine that they own).
Prior to the invention of corporations, when a business failed, its creditors could go after and bankrupt its owners, including taking all of their property for the business' debts.
Corporations allowed business owners to be paid by the corporation, but not be legally or financially liable in the event of the business' failure.
Re: Whatever else, Range had no clue about his job description
"represents an intolerable encroachment on the independence of the judiciary" -- no wonder they decided to fire him.
Indeed. That alone should've got him fired. That should have incensed members of the judiciary, and how could he then be expected to perform his duties? None of the judiciary would be willing to believe a word he said.
The whole thing appears to have turned into quite the soap opera.
I would not characterize this as soap opera. I'd call it the German gov't remembering it's still an independent country and re-exerting control over its hirelings including the prosecutor, despite whatever special relationship its BND may feel towards the USA and its NSA.
Bravo Germany. At least the German gov't still believes in freedom of the press, despite everything the USA has done to marginalize and co-opt its MSM. What's next, asylum for Assange and Snowden?
Some people incorporate their business with themselves as the sole corporate officer and sole employee. Why do you believe that they shouldn't have human rights, despite being a person?
Who's saying that, other than you?
They didn't lose any rights through incorporating. They shouldn't gain any either, other than tax, legal, and financial limitations.
Do corporations get a vote when they incorporate? No? You've been robbed! I suppose that's next on the agenda, or perhaps we'll just do away with all that election sillyness, and go back to being "equals." Feudalism, here we come.
Corporations are like Soylent Green -- they're made of people.
Ground up, chopped and formed, cooked, with artificial flavoring ... Are you really attempting to defend corporations with that?
People have rights -- you don't lose your human rights just because you stand in a crowd of people instead of all by yourself.
Those people shouldn't gain any rights just by all standing together in a crowd either. They all have their individual rights. Why does their incorporation gain them yet another voice?
Because money, corporations, bribed politicians, and credulous, partisan, SCOTUS appointees.
The decision in Citizens United was, basically, that groups of people don't lose their human rights just because they equate speech with money.
FTFY. If we had real freedom of the press, everyone would need to own a press to avail themselves of said freedom. Instead, we free those with presses to use them because we all benefit if they do, in theory. Nowadays, you need a television network that can broadcast attack ads, for your snowflake to not look like an asshole while still vilifying you.
All of you who use that word that way are instilling it with a positive value that is not there. You can progress towards death, and physicians talk of the progression of a disease. It means movement towards an end, whether that end is good or bad for the progressor. When I was younger, we often heard it used pejoratively. "That's progress for you. Going to hell in a handbasket!" Shakespear used it to describe tears running down one's cheek, not evaporating up to heaven.
The framers of the constitution called themselves liberal. Conservatives vilified it for political reasons, and those liberals then started calling themselves "Classical Liberals." That didn't match up with FDR style big gov't liberalism. "Progressive" was invented by those desperate to re-brand and get away from the pejorative connotations of "FDR liberalism."
Someone who thinks in a progressive manner rather than regressive?
Are you really that stupid? I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Amin, Pol Pot, and Mao all believed themselves "progressives" in their own way.
Pro-this or Anti-that mean something. Progressive? Not much. One individual or group's progressive is another tyrant's regressive, and vice versa.
I'm not a "progressive", whatever that word means these days.
It never ceases to amaze me that progressives think that companies made up of a group of people should not have the right to free speech.
The individual people in that group certainly have a protected right of free speech. Why an organization made up of those people is allowed to sidestep campaign finance laws is the problem. You're allowed to donate X many dollars to support a candidate. That group is allowed to accept gazillions from one or many supporters, then spend it on behalf of its special snowflake.
Newspapers are little different, and can achieve the dream, at least on their own site
While ignoring all the other sites out here where people lambaste you for your arrogant belief that you've managed to quell the toxic discussion of your silly site policies and actions. Github, DailyDot, Verge, ...
Do they seriously believe this is doing anything about trollish comments, or is this just to save money or something? I think it's pretty obviously the latter.
I'd also like to say, the existence of racially segregated sororities really stands out as pretty silly to me. When's this race war supposed to end again?
I thought a lot of blacks worked for TSA. It's a shitty job that doesn't pay very well. I'd expect poor blacks to gravitate towards it, as they'd have fewer whites to compete against for the job.
Apparently saying cops are "slackers" means you're a "violent" protester then.
Passing a law like this is the elected politicians admitting the police are slackers. They believe either the police can't or won't do their job without powers such as this.
They're charging this guy for agreeing with the politicians.
On the post: FBI Sends Subpoena To Boing Boing Over Its Tor Exit Node, Gets Educated, Goes Away
Prima facie "Social Justice Warrior" detected!
Can't be bothered to read the article, but posting what I think about what it says anyway. That comment has nothing to do with this story. The cop realized his/her mistake, and went away happy. Yet you then come along and spit out that. What for?
Why would anyone want to do this (what you did) as an AC? What's it really get you?
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
FTFY. It's a money making machine designed to distance the shareholders (its owners) from the legal and tax obligations of the business (the money making machine that they own).
Prior to the invention of corporations, when a business failed, its creditors could go after and bankrupt its owners, including taking all of their property for the business' debts.
Corporations allowed business owners to be paid by the corporation, but not be legally or financially liable in the event of the business' failure.
On the post: German Justice Minister Fires Top Prosecutor Over 'Treason' Probe Into Journalists After War Of Words
Re: Re:
On the post: German Justice Minister Fires Top Prosecutor Over 'Treason' Probe Into Journalists After War Of Words
Re: Whatever else, Range had no clue about his job description
Indeed. That alone should've got him fired. That should have incensed members of the judiciary, and how could he then be expected to perform his duties? None of the judiciary would be willing to believe a word he said.
On the post: German Justice Minister Fires Top Prosecutor Over 'Treason' Probe Into Journalists After War Of Words
Soap opera?!?
I would not characterize this as soap opera. I'd call it the German gov't remembering it's still an independent country and re-exerting control over its hirelings including the prosecutor, despite whatever special relationship its BND may feel towards the USA and its NSA.
Bravo Germany. At least the German gov't still believes in freedom of the press, despite everything the USA has done to marginalize and co-opt its MSM. What's next, asylum for Assange and Snowden?
On the post: German Justice Minister Fires Top Prosecutor Over 'Treason' Probe Into Journalists After War Of Words
Re: Re: "independent expert"
I wonder if that friend is his CIA contact at the local US embassy.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
Who's saying that, other than you?
They didn't lose any rights through incorporating. They shouldn't gain any either, other than tax, legal, and financial limitations.
Do corporations get a vote when they incorporate? No? You've been robbed! I suppose that's next on the agenda, or perhaps we'll just do away with all that election sillyness, and go back to being "equals." Feudalism, here we come.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
Ground up, chopped and formed, cooked, with artificial flavoring ... Are you really attempting to defend corporations with that?
Those people shouldn't gain any rights just by all standing together in a crowd either. They all have their individual rights. Why does their incorporation gain them yet another voice?
Because money, corporations, bribed politicians, and credulous, partisan, SCOTUS appointees.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
FTFY. If we had real freedom of the press, everyone would need to own a press to avail themselves of said freedom. Instead, we free those with presses to use them because we all benefit if they do, in theory. Nowadays, you need a television network that can broadcast attack ads, for your snowflake to not look like an asshole while still vilifying you.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Progressive.
The framers of the constitution called themselves liberal. Conservatives vilified it for political reasons, and those liberals then started calling themselves "Classical Liberals." That didn't match up with FDR style big gov't liberalism. "Progressive" was invented by those desperate to re-brand and get away from the pejorative connotations of "FDR liberalism."
It's just marketing-speak or Newspeak.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
Are you really that stupid? I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Amin, Pol Pot, and Mao all believed themselves "progressives" in their own way.
Pro-this or Anti-that mean something. Progressive? Not much. One individual or group's progressive is another tyrant's regressive, and vice versa.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
The individual people in that group certainly have a protected right of free speech. Why an organization made up of those people is allowed to sidestep campaign finance laws is the problem. You're allowed to donate X many dollars to support a candidate. That group is allowed to accept gazillions from one or many supporters, then spend it on behalf of its special snowflake.
That's stupid.
On the post: Daily Dot Latest To 'Keep Conversation Moving Forward' By Not Letting Site Visitors Comment At All
Morans.
While ignoring all the other sites out here where people lambaste you for your arrogant belief that you've managed to quell the toxic discussion of your silly site policies and actions. Github, DailyDot, Verge, ...
Do they seriously believe this is doing anything about trollish comments, or is this just to save money or something? I think it's pretty obviously the latter.
On the post: Github Nukes Repository Over Use Of The Word 'Retard'
Re: Re:
On the post: Github Nukes Repository Over Use Of The Word 'Retard'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, and lots fewer women! Everybody knows they can't do IT. Shades of Gamergate. Grace Hopper offers them a free faceplant.
On the post: TSA Decides Sorority Souvenir Book Carried By Dozens Of Travelers Probably A Bomb
Re: They could have gathered all the sorority luggage together...
Naah. These were black women. TSA thought they were inundated with a hoard of drug mules. They'd need to use a "War On Drugs" detection dog.
On the post: TSA Decides Sorority Souvenir Book Carried By Dozens Of Travelers Probably A Bomb
Re:
On the post: TSA Decides Sorority Souvenir Book Carried By Dozens Of Travelers Probably A Bomb
Re:
I thought a lot of blacks worked for TSA. It's a shitty job that doesn't pay very well. I'd expect poor blacks to gravitate towards it, as they'd have fewer whites to compete against for the job.
On the post: TSA Decides Sorority Souvenir Book Carried By Dozens Of Travelers Probably A Bomb
Re:
That was my first suspicion on seeing this. TSA: "What's a book?"
On the post: Spanish Cops Use New Law To Fine Facebook Commenter For Calling Them 'Slackers'
Re:
Passing a law like this is the elected politicians admitting the police are slackers. They believe either the police can't or won't do their job without powers such as this.
They're charging this guy for agreeing with the politicians.
Next >>