Because if you make EVERYTHING that pisses you off personally a felony, what are you going to do with all those felons?
Yeah, because I totally said that, didn't I? I said "everything that pisses me off should be a felony."
...oh wait, no, I didn't. In fact, I said nothing of the sort. Seriously, where do you people get this crap from?
But a person who betrays the trust of those who are supposed to be under his protection and inflicts violence on them? Give me one good reason why that should not be among the most serious felonies on the books.
Prison doesn't work. If it did, the outcome would be LESS people in prison, rather than more.
Depends on how you define "work". You know what keeping someone locked up does a very effective job of? Preventing them from beating on their family any more!
Well, I'm currently making 6 figures as a professional software development. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, since you seem to already be doing so anyway...
I guess you don't support womens rights. They have the same rights as men. Why do you see them as inferior?
First off, how in the world did anything I said lead you to conclude any such thing about my beliefs?!? I said nothing whatsoever about the rights of women. I did imply that they have a right to not be beaten on by their husbands, but that's it.
Second, "domestic violence" doesn't mean spitting on someone. It means that someone was being violent enough that the victim was in in fear for their own safety to such a degree that they called the cops on the guy, knowing full well that if this didn't work it would invite reprisals. Go on, ask me how I know what these things mean and how they work...
Ramirez was being arrested for a misdemeanor offense, domestic violence – battery.
I was with you right up until I read this line.
First off, why in the world do places exist in the USA where beating your wife and/or kids is only a misdemeanor? And second, if he'd been doing that, he deserves everything the cop did to him and more. Sorry if that sounds harsh and offends anyone's delicate sensibilities, but if so you probably haven't been on the receiving end. Any man who is capable of bringing himself to do that is no man at all.
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?
I believe nothing of the sort. I believe that this hypothetical person should retain all of their human rights, but that the corporate entity that this person is the sole-officer-and-employee of should not have any human rights, because it is not a human being.
Is that distinction really so difficult to understand?
...which brings us right back to my point. The 14th amendment requires equal protection for every person. When you take an entity that is not a person and create the legal fiction that they are, and place it in a context that leaves said fake person able to wield greater power and influence than any real person, this is a very serious problem. Particularly when said fake person has a long and well-established history of outright hostility towards the well-being of real persons.
A ruling that states that "people" who are not actually people can enjoy greater rights than any and all real citizens, black, white, or otherwise? And that they are free to wield that influence in ways that deliberately goes against the interests--and frequently against the basic health, safety, and fundamental rights--of real citizens?
Yes, absolutely, that's at least as bad as Dred Scott if not worse.
"Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. "If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." -- C. S. Lewis
Funny how that works out. They can unilaterally claim that they're serving the shareholders' interests without actually having to ask the shareholders about their positions on the political issues in question. Meanwhile, a subsequent ruling "clarified" that unions--which theoretically were supposed to receive the same privileges under Citizens United--must actually hold a vote and receive approval from the union members in order to do the same.
If it wasn't already clear what the real purpose of the Citizens United ruling was, that made it about as clear as it can possibly be: to deliberately tilt the playing field as far in favor of large corporations as possible, at the expense of everyone who might possibly disagree with them.
But, after that, what's your beef? Merely that the court (partially) ruled for the (non-profit) corporation against the FEC?
Perhaps you were really in love with 2 U.S.C. § 441b?
OK, dude, make up your mind. Are you playing dumb or are you bloviating and obfuscating and pretending to be really smart? Because you just did both right after each other, and it's a bit jarring.
You appear to be trying to put this ruling, or very small parts thereof, in a box, isolated from context and from the broader reality of political campaigning in the USA, in order to sow doubt as to what this ruling was or what its effects were or... something. Your comments are so full of questioning innuendos, and so utterly bereft of actual claims and substantial arguments, that I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to cast doubt upon.
Would you mind actually stating a clear position? I stated mine--my "beef," as you put it--several posts ago.
Exactly. It's about time someone takes this seriously, and as unfortunate as it is when what it takes is someone in a position of authority being personally inconvenienced enough to take notice, it does appear that that's what it takes.
Heck, this judge is one of the lucky ones. Sometimes the victims end up with far worse problems than simply getting their luggage back a few weeks late.
If someone's personal belongings are held by another party who trusts that they will be returned intact, and that trust is violated, there absolutely does need to be accountability. With great power comes great responsibility.
Yes, I'm well-aware of the original issue that the case was supposedly about. I'm also aware that certain Justices used it as an excuse to issue a pro-corporatist ruling that went far beyond the scope of what was actually being litigated.
I recall that it equated money with political speech and declared that, under the First Amendment, such "speech" could not be limited, and also, just to make things worse, declared that corporations--which due to their nature as conglomerate entities have far more resources available than individual human beings--have such a First Amendment right that must not be infringed upon.
I recall that it's already become one of the most infamous and obviously evil Supreme Court cases of all time, on par with the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade decisions, both of which took a class of entities that are human beings and denied them basic protections of human rights. Citizens United is abominable for the opposite reason: it takes a class of entities that are not human beings and grants them human rights, to the detriment of actual human beings.
In any event, the present case [PDF] relies in some small part on Citizens United.
Irony of ironies. That still doesn't make it a good ruling.
Federal authorities have argued that using straw buyers is a deceptive practice that ... limits the ability of automakers to keep tight control over sales to domestic dealers and to foreign countries.
Waitwaitwait... didn't the Supreme Court rule in the Kirtsaeng case, a couple years ago, that no such anti-arbitrage right exists? Or does that only apply to publishers?
On the post: What Does USTR Have Against The Public Domain? Opposing TPP Provision In Support Of Public Domain
Re: Descriptions matter
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re:
Yeah, because I totally said that, didn't I? I said "everything that pisses me off should be a felony."
...oh wait, no, I didn't. In fact, I said nothing of the sort. Seriously, where do you people get this crap from?
But a person who betrays the trust of those who are supposed to be under his protection and inflicts violence on them? Give me one good reason why that should not be among the most serious felonies on the books.
Depends on how you define "work". You know what keeping someone locked up does a very effective job of? Preventing them from beating on their family any more!
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re:
Well, I'm currently making 6 figures as a professional software development. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, since you seem to already be doing so anyway...
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
Re: Re:
First off, how in the world did anything I said lead you to conclude any such thing about my beliefs?!? I said nothing whatsoever about the rights of women. I did imply that they have a right to not be beaten on by their husbands, but that's it.
Second, "domestic violence" doesn't mean spitting on someone. It means that someone was being violent enough that the victim was in in fear for their own safety to such a degree that they called the cops on the guy, knowing full well that if this didn't work it would invite reprisals. Go on, ask me how I know what these things mean and how they work...
On the post: TPP Leaks Shows US Stands Firm That Companies Should Be Free To Abuse Patents & Copyrights
On the post: Deputy Wants Immunity After Breaking Bones, Tearing Ligaments Of Suspect During Arrest; Appeals Court Quickly Shuts Him Down
I was with you right up until I read this line.
First off, why in the world do places exist in the USA where beating your wife and/or kids is only a misdemeanor? And second, if he'd been doing that, he deserves everything the cop did to him and more. Sorry if that sounds harsh and offends anyone's delicate sensibilities, but if so you probably haven't been on the receiving end. Any man who is capable of bringing himself to do that is no man at all.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
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: ]
I believe nothing of the sort. I believe that this hypothetical person should retain all of their human rights, but that the corporate entity that this person is the sole-officer-and-employee of should not have any human rights, because it is not a human being.
Is that distinction really so difficult to understand?
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
Yes, absolutely, that's at least as bad as Dred Scott if not worse.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
"If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
-- C. S. Lewis
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
If it wasn't already clear what the real purpose of the Citizens United ruling was, that made it about as clear as it can possibly be: to deliberately tilt the playing field as far in favor of large corporations as possible, at the expense of everyone who might possibly disagree with them.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
OK, dude, make up your mind. Are you playing dumb or are you bloviating and obfuscating and pretending to be really smart? Because you just did both right after each other, and it's a bit jarring.
You appear to be trying to put this ruling, or very small parts thereof, in a box, isolated from context and from the broader reality of political campaigning in the USA, in order to sow doubt as to what this ruling was or what its effects were or... something. Your comments are so full of questioning innuendos, and so utterly bereft of actual claims and substantial arguments, that I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to cast doubt upon.
Would you mind actually stating a clear position? I stated mine--my "beef," as you put it--several posts ago.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not vague citations with no context.
On the post: Judge Insists His Own Lost Luggage Is A 'Key' Issue In Massive Lawsuit He's Overseeing Against British Airways
Re:
Heck, this judge is one of the lucky ones. Sometimes the victims end up with far worse problems than simply getting their luggage back a few weeks late.
If someone's personal belongings are held by another party who trusts that they will be returned intact, and that trust is violated, there absolutely does need to be accountability. With great power comes great responsibility.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Re: Citizens United [was Re: ]
I recall that it equated money with political speech and declared that, under the First Amendment, such "speech" could not be limited, and also, just to make things worse, declared that corporations--which due to their nature as conglomerate entities have far more resources available than individual human beings--have such a First Amendment right that must not be infringed upon.
I recall that it's already become one of the most infamous and obviously evil Supreme Court cases of all time, on par with the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade decisions, both of which took a class of entities that are human beings and denied them basic protections of human rights. Citizens United is abominable for the opposite reason: it takes a class of entities that are not human beings and grants them human rights, to the detriment of actual human beings.
Irony of ironies. That still doesn't make it a good ruling.
On the post: Anti-Whistleblower 'Ag-Gag' Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Is it really, in a world where Citizens United is a thing?
On the post: Government Seizes Vehicles Worth $1 Million; Brings No Charges, Keeps The Cars
Waitwaitwait... didn't the Supreme Court rule in the Kirtsaeng case, a couple years ago, that no such anti-arbitrage right exists? Or does that only apply to publishers?
On the post: Github Nukes Repository Over Use Of The Word 'Retard'
Re: Re:
I've never heard that term before. The mental imagery it conjures up is... somewhat disturbing.
Next >>