The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
01-07-2014, 11:57 PM
#4901
^Couldn't the Feds then just pass a law requiring utility service to intelligence agencies, overriding the state law, and exposing this for the time wasting grandstanding that it is?
Or threaten highway funding?
Or threaten education funding?
Or any of the other ways in which the Feds coerce states into complying?
Or threaten highway funding?
Or threaten education funding?
Or any of the other ways in which the Feds coerce states into complying?
Reply
0
0
01-08-2014, 08:05 AM
#4902
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
But until state politicians quit bending to the will of the Feds, it will continue to happen. Then at the next election the opposing candidate will say, "Think of all those jobs he let leave because he wanted a make a point, the children, baby jeebus, etc"
Until the avg American can learn to see through the bullshit, it will not change.
And I'm not confident the drooling, Dancing with the Stars watching masses will ever get involved with what the gov't is doing.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2014, 08:30 AM
#4903
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
they dont care so long as the gub extends unemployment benefits so they can continue to pay their car note so they can make it to interviews and pay their cell phone bill so they can get calls back from potential employers and have "affordable" healthcare subsidized by the healthy.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2014, 08:37 AM
#4904
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
they dont care so long as the gub extends unemployment benefits so they can continue to pay their car note so they can make it to interviews and pay their cell phone bill so they can get calls back from potential employers and have "affordable" healthcare subsidized by the healthy.
Also, healthcare has always been subsidized by the healthy. Take a look at the Lipitor gobbling fatasses in your office.
They are paying the same premium as you.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2014, 08:50 AM
#4905
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I was making a jab at the president's speech the other day.
in such, he tells a story about how this girl wants to find a job, but without unemployment she can't pay for her car and cell phone to be able to get a job to pay for her car and cell phone.
he also says unemployment benefits is a jobs creator and improves the economy, because people have more money to spend and that boosts the local economy and sparks buisnesses to hire more. and plenty of other classic remarks.
btw, the 7 Rs that voted for this bill are just doing it to secure their job...not because they actually believe it's beneficial in any way (beyond themselves).
in such, he tells a story about how this girl wants to find a job, but without unemployment she can't pay for her car and cell phone to be able to get a job to pay for her car and cell phone.
he also says unemployment benefits is a jobs creator and improves the economy, because people have more money to spend and that boosts the local economy and sparks buisnesses to hire more. and plenty of other classic remarks.
btw, the 7 Rs that voted for this bill are just doing it to secure their job...not because they actually believe it's beneficial in any way (beyond themselves).
Reply
0
0
01-08-2014, 09:09 AM
#4906
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
^Yes, that is all ridiculous.
I'm just tired of the constant "poor bashing." It's getting old and is counterproductive. Especially when a majority of welfare recipients are old people and children.
I'm just tired of the constant "poor bashing." It's getting old and is counterproductive. Especially when a majority of welfare recipients are old people and children.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2014, 07:35 AM
#4908
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Insane Clown Posse Sue FBI and Department of Justice Over Juggalos' Gang Classification | Music News | Rolling Stone
Horrorcore-rap duo Insane Clown Posse, along with four fans, are suing the Department of Justice and the FBI, demanding that the agencies purge the fan name "Juggalos" from their list of gang members. "Organized crime is by no means part of the Juggalo culture," reads the complaint, filed this morning in federal court in Detroit.
The suit stems from the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center classification of Juggalos as "a loosely-organized hybrid gang," one with multiple affiliations. Lawyers for ICP and the ACLU claim that the profiling of Juggalos — based on their distinctive clown makeup and Hatchetman tattoos — lacks reasonable suspicion of gang affiliation. As a result, the "unconstitutionally vague" designation has since intimidated many from expressing themselves and denied them protection from unreasonable searches, according to the filing.
The suit stems from the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center classification of Juggalos as "a loosely-organized hybrid gang," one with multiple affiliations. Lawyers for ICP and the ACLU claim that the profiling of Juggalos — based on their distinctive clown makeup and Hatchetman tattoos — lacks reasonable suspicion of gang affiliation. As a result, the "unconstitutionally vague" designation has since intimidated many from expressing themselves and denied them protection from unreasonable searches, according to the filing.
Reply
0
0
01-09-2014, 11:10 PM
#4909
I really hope this is true lol.
Jennifer McCarthy Pulls Gun From Vagina After Dispute Over Space Aliens: Cops
Jennifer McCarthy Pulls Gun From Vagina After Dispute Over Space Aliens: Cops
Reply
0
0
01-10-2014, 09:08 AM
#4911
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
The really funny thing is that Mr. Maddow might just be the most sane person as MSNBC. I think they have four viewers at this point. Four DUMB viewers. This is the latest lie they've tried to pass:
Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line
Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hunkers down on Koch Bros. claim
Reply
0
0
01-10-2014, 09:10 AM
#4912
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Court rules YELP must ID negative reviewers; no constitutional protection - Washington Times
In a decision that could reshape the rules for online consumer reviews, a Virginia court has ruled that the popular website Yelp must turn over the names of seven reviewers who anonymously criticized a prominent local carpet cleaning business.
The case revolves around negative feedback against Virginia-based Hadeed Carpet Cleaning. The owner, Joe Hadeed, said the users leaving bad reviews were not real customers of the cleaning service — something that would violate Yelp’s terms of service. His attorneys issued a subpoena demanding the names of seven anonymous reviewers, and a judge in Alexandria ruled that Yelp had to comply.
...
In a 25-page majority opinion, Judge William G. Petty said, “Generally, a Yelp review is entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a person’s opinion about a business that they patronized.
“The anonymous speaker has the right to express himself on the Internet without the fear that his veil of anonymity will be pierced for no other reason than because another person disagrees with him,” Judge Petty wrote.
However, the court said that First Amendment rights do not cover deliberately false statements and agreed that Mr. Hadeed provided sufficient reason to think the users might not have been customers.
If “the reviewer was never a customer of the business, then the review is not an opinion; instead, the review is based on a false statement” and not subject to First Amendment protection, the opinion stated.
The case revolves around negative feedback against Virginia-based Hadeed Carpet Cleaning. The owner, Joe Hadeed, said the users leaving bad reviews were not real customers of the cleaning service — something that would violate Yelp’s terms of service. His attorneys issued a subpoena demanding the names of seven anonymous reviewers, and a judge in Alexandria ruled that Yelp had to comply.
...
In a 25-page majority opinion, Judge William G. Petty said, “Generally, a Yelp review is entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a person’s opinion about a business that they patronized.
“The anonymous speaker has the right to express himself on the Internet without the fear that his veil of anonymity will be pierced for no other reason than because another person disagrees with him,” Judge Petty wrote.
However, the court said that First Amendment rights do not cover deliberately false statements and agreed that Mr. Hadeed provided sufficient reason to think the users might not have been customers.
If “the reviewer was never a customer of the business, then the review is not an opinion; instead, the review is based on a false statement” and not subject to First Amendment protection, the opinion stated.
Reply
0
0
01-10-2014, 10:21 AM
#4918
He was able to present the court with enough evidence to convince them that the reviewer was likely not a real customer. It would then follow that these statements are knowingly false and damaging. There is a charge for just this action. It is called libel and is in place because you are not allowed to use the protection of your own rights to violate someone else's rights.
Reply
0
0
01-10-2014, 10:51 AM
#4920
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
He was able to present the court with enough evidence to convince them that the reviewer was likely not a real customer. It would then follow that these statements are knowingly false and damaging. There is a charge for just this action. It is called libel and is in place because you are not allowed to use the protection of your own rights to violate someone else's rights.
This dude told the judge: I dont like these reviews on yelp, im not going to prove they aren't untrue, but i don't think they are real, here look I have a list of real names of customers, and these anonymous ones who don't want to be identified don't match my records.
judge says, okay, yelp! you gotta name them peeps now.
it's dangerous.
so let's say they get named, and they are found to be a combo of both real and fake? now what? now the business owner will sue these people? how does that help the defamation suit against yelp? they didn't write the reviews...and again, all reviews that are questioned into being fake/libel are hidden by yelp policy, all these reviews in question in this suit are no longer available to see online already.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-10-2014 at 11:05 AM.
Reply
0
0
