That's what I was wondering too. It sounds like they had plenty of evidence to go after the right person, so why did they railroad this innocent man? Do they just find it fun to be cruel? Did they have some beef with him?
Why do you think it's rational to treat sharing pie (or anything) between two people as though it's the same as society taxing its members to pay for services?
At half, …I’m angry!
It's disingenuous to frame a top personal tax rate above 50% as taxing more than half your income. That's not how it works.
Nobody who supports corporate tax breaks is remotely left.
Well that depends what you compare her to. Compared to some of the neo-fascists getting elected to the House lately, she's pretty far left. Compared to European politics she would probably be considered hard right.
?
You said "steal from the haves" when the actual policy position is to tax the haves.
…and, so what? Then the business fails.
Perhaps I should have said "unprofitable." The executives will want the business to be monumentally profitable before taking into account executive salaries and bonuses. If it dips into or near unprofitability after taking those into account, that means little or no corporate income tax, and also little personal income tax, but the business will still be a going concern. A perfect situation to let the rich get richer off the backs of everyone else. Something I do not think you support.
Clinton would be Venezuela or Cuba vs the others moving us towards Sweden.
Clinton is barely left of Reagan. You're delusional if you think she's a leftist, and if you think she's to the left of AOC or Sanders... I have no idea where you could have gotten that idea. Now if you're saying she's more of an authoritarian than the other two I would agree, but not in a leftist, owning the means of production way.
We have Dems that want to steal from the haves to give to the have nots.
You misspelled "tax".
You can do that by pulling taxation from the business, not the individual.
That incentivizes making the business unprofitable due to paying enormous wages to the executives, who then don't have to pay tax on that money. Instead, tax the business very little, and institute extremely high top personal income tax. This incentivizes rolling that money back into the business instead, where it might actually benefit society. This is how it was in the 50s, and it was discontinued because it didn't allow the wealthy to become obscenely wealthy.
This was an error made by an entry level programmer
I have never seen an entry level programmer willing to just make something up and put it on the corporate web site, rather than getting the exact text spelled out by somebody at a higher pay grade. Top level bus throwing going on here.
I prefer the smaller round. As as I stated use a smaller one still. Less penetration. Less damage to surrounding tissue.
Happened to come across this video, demonstrating more penetration from a faster smaller round, not less, though it's a rifle compared to pistols. Thought you might be interested.
They are still remote-controlled rather than fully automated, but there is a lot of automation involved already, and they are always pushing for more.
OK, but that's a robot killing someone.
Also, a gun-based trap doesn't have a will, but it is setup to fire on its own.
Legally that's the person who set up the trap killing someone. Philosophically, did the trap kill, or did the person setting it up? Or both? Was it the gun that killed, or the entire trap-gun mechanism? Anyway...
The assertion that all these dogs are only alerting to invisible cues from their handlers is ridiculous.
Nobody asserted that they only alert to cues from their handlers. That's a straw man.
It's impossible for a handler to give a dog a cue-- intentional or otherwise-- to alert on something the handler himself does not know is there or if there is even anything to alert on at all.
No, but they can give them a cue for something they believe is there, and the dog may alert on it. Which means those alerts cannot be relied on as evidence that there's anything there.
But yes, there is a sad, maybe pathetic, lack of aim from our combat soldiers.
I doubt very much of that is due to just missing, I think it's mostly suppressing fire and the like. But I don't know if the military is explaining this in more detail, I haven't really looked into it. They probably wouldn't be forthcoming if the real answer is that our soldiers can't hit their targets.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re:
Hey conservatives, this is what an actual communist proposal looks like.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re: Re: Re:
He didn't take a plea deal, he was convicted at trial.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re:
That's what I was wondering too. It sounds like they had plenty of evidence to go after the right person, so why did they railroad this innocent man? Do they just find it fun to be cruel? Did they have some beef with him?
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally
Why do you think it's rational to treat sharing pie (or anything) between two people as though it's the same as society taxing its members to pay for services?
It's disingenuous to frame a top personal tax rate above 50% as taxing more than half your income. That's not how it works.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without
Where do you get that idea?
I'm not sure where or why bad employment practices entered the discussion. But I don't disagree.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Well that depends what you compare her to. Compared to some of the neo-fascists getting elected to the House lately, she's pretty far left. Compared to European politics she would probably be considered hard right.
You said "steal from the haves" when the actual policy position is to tax the haves.
Perhaps I should have said "unprofitable." The executives will want the business to be monumentally profitable before taking into account executive salaries and bonuses. If it dips into or near unprofitability after taking those into account, that means little or no corporate income tax, and also little personal income tax, but the business will still be a going concern. A perfect situation to let the rich get richer off the backs of everyone else. Something I do not think you support.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
What country does that?
Clinton is barely left of Reagan. You're delusional if you think she's a leftist, and if you think she's to the left of AOC or Sanders... I have no idea where you could have gotten that idea. Now if you're saying she's more of an authoritarian than the other two I would agree, but not in a leftist, owning the means of production way.
You misspelled "tax".
That incentivizes making the business unprofitable due to paying enormous wages to the executives, who then don't have to pay tax on that money. Instead, tax the business very little, and institute extremely high top personal income tax. This incentivizes rolling that money back into the business instead, where it might actually benefit society. This is how it was in the 50s, and it was discontinued because it didn't allow the wealthy to become obscenely wealthy.
On the post: Surveillance Company CEO Threatens To Sue Reporter For Writing About His Company
Entry level?
I have never seen an entry level programmer willing to just make something up and put it on the corporate web site, rather than getting the exact text spelled out by somebody at a higher pay grade. Top level bus throwing going on here.
On the post: Company Promises 'Seamless Parking Experience' In Exchange For The Permission To Track App Users All Over The Internet
Re: Re: Re: The stupid, it burns!
If demand is sufficiently low it will work fine. Is that in a city of over a million people?
On the post: YouTuber Has 150 Anime Reviews And 'Let's Draws' Hit With Copyright Claims All At Once
Re: Protip
Losing the video itself isn't the problem here. He's not using YouTube for video storage, but to make money.
On the post: EU, US Start To Realize Letting Elon Musk Dictate Global Space Rules Might Not Be The Brightest Idea
Re: fan boy astronomy
Citation, please.
On the post: EU, US Start To Realize Letting Elon Musk Dictate Global Space Rules Might Not Be The Brightest Idea
Re: New acronym
Or Low Orbit of Earth Satellite Service - LOESS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess
On the post: An Unplanned, Ad-Hoc Collaboration Reveals The On-The-Ground Truth About China's Internment Camps For Uyghurs
Re: Re:
Or in this case Go.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Happened to come across this video, demonstrating more penetration from a faster smaller round, not less, though it's a rifle compared to pistols. Thought you might be interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2XZHmdRFI
Skip to 10:30 if you just want to see the .50 compared to the AR-15.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Lying About Reporters Who Uncovered Ridiculous Bad State Computer Security; Still Insists They Were Hackers
Re: Re: Liars
And Al Gore only missed being president because of the Supreme Court, not anything the Democratic party leadership did.
On the post: YouTube Copyright Transparency Report Shows The Absurd Volume Of Copyright Claims It Gets
Re:
There is no set amount of a work that automatically qualifies (or does not qualify) as fair use.
On the post: YouTube Copyright Transparency Report Shows The Absurd Volume Of Copyright Claims It Gets
Re: Re: Re:
The original copyright law in the US required registration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
OK, but that's a robot killing someone.
Legally that's the person who set up the trap killing someone. Philosophically, did the trap kill, or did the person setting it up? Or both? Was it the gun that killed, or the entire trap-gun mechanism? Anyway...
On the post: Colorado Appeals Court Says A Drug Dog That Alerts On Now-Legal Weed Can't Create Probable Cause For A Search
Re: Re:
Nobody asserted that they only alert to cues from their handlers. That's a straw man.
No, but they can give them a cue for something they believe is there, and the dog may alert on it. Which means those alerts cannot be relied on as evidence that there's anything there.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally with
I doubt very much of that is due to just missing, I think it's mostly suppressing fire and the like. But I don't know if the military is explaining this in more detail, I haven't really looked into it. They probably wouldn't be forthcoming if the real answer is that our soldiers can't hit their targets.
Next >>